Menu

Fear of ‘ridicule’ leads to damaging partition of 9/11 Truth movement

According to Chandler and Romanoff, Gage and Ryan should have passed up this audience.

By Craig McKee

The 9/11 Truth movement is fighting a war – but it’s only wounding itself.

Self-appointed “credibility cops” have made it their mission to act as antibodies in the Truth movement’s immune system, seeking out and destroying harmful ideas, individuals, and alliances they think threaten the survival of the host. The idea is to rid the movement of any area of research that might contaminate it and invite public ridicule.

But is the cure worse than the disease?

The exaggerated need to control all aspects of the message is working against us. We have become so preoccupied with cleansing the movement of harmful thoughts that we spend an unhealthy amount of time attacking each other instead of the official story and the media cover-up.

Here’s the fear: a truther expresses sympathy for an idea that is highly contentious (or suspected of being disinformation) for one reason or another. At some point, we’re told, the idea may be discredited, and the movement will be left looking foolish.

But is this fear justified? Is it realistic to think that taking certain positions – if they are later discredited – will bring the whole movement down?

Our fear of good evidence being tainted by bad is making disinformation more effective in fragmenting us. It’s not just the infiltrators and agents attacking us that should concern us, it’s the infiltrators and agents getting us to attack each other.

This cleansing process has another dark side; while truthers are incessantly policing what is considered acceptable, camouflage is provided for the efforts of those who claim to be helping the movement but who are actually intent upon destroying it. Free license is given to those pretenders who wish to attack good evidence while holding on to their “respectability” within the movement.

Hatchet-men like Michiel de Boer (Snowcrash) and Brian Good are among those who claim to be doing good by relentlessly attacking the Truth movement under the guise of purging it of bad theories. What a great excuse for launching endless attacks against honest truthers. We give these people tremendous power when we behave as they do.

It should be noted that some level of concern about losing credibility is reasonable. We want to take strong positions that can be backed up by solid research and sound science, and we want to communicate those to the public and the media in the most persuasive way possible. But whatever cause there is for concern has led to a wild overreaction.

The fear of ridicule is based on a major false assumption as well, that the media are just waiting for us to make a mistake so they can go to the public and say, “Aha! We told you they were crazy!” We WISH the media were paying that much attention to us. The problem is that they are pretty much ignoring our efforts.

There are several prominent truthers who claim that saying no 757 ever hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11 will make the movement look foolish, perhaps when those 85 videos are released at some distant point in the future. Better to stick to ideas the public can swallow more easily, they tell us.

One is John Bursill who made this very point on 911blogger in 2009:

“…if the media/military produce a video tomorrow of a plane hitting the Pentagon we are as a movement dead in the water.”

So instead of attacking the many gaping holes in the government’s Pentagon scenario, Bursill and others prop it up, focusing instead on how Hani Hanjour didn’t have the piloting skills to pull off the “attack.” They continually warn us about the dire consequences of exposing ourselves to ridicule if we don’t see things their way.

In their paper attacking Citizen Investigation Team last year, David Chandler and Jonathan Cole used the fear of ridicule to scare us off considering the evidence that no large plane hit the Pentagon, even implying that CIT’s Pentagon position could be intentional disinformation:

“…the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories … this is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited.”

They go on: “Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the attention of the Truth Movement onto the Pentagon? Does it sound too cynical to suggest that we are being intentionally set up?”

Then there are those who offer compelling evidence that a plane didn’t hit – Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of CIT. They are perhaps even more extreme in their belief that any questionable comment or association will cause terrible damage to them and to the movement.

It is ironic that CIT takes very much the same approach in this regard as do their harshest opponents. They don’t want the purity of their north side evidence (which I continue to support) to be tarnished by coming into contact with the “bad” evidence like video fakery, mini-nukes, or directed energy weapons bringing down the towers.

In fact, my tolerance for discussion of some of these issues in the comments section of Truth and Shadows has led CIT’s Marquis to ask me to stop mentioning CIT or him by name in my articles. He thinks my ardent support for CIT’s conclusions is harming their efforts. Ouch. The request was, of course, denied.

Major 9/11 conferences have also been affected by the trumped up fear of ridicule. The organizers of the Toronto 9/11 Hearings in 2011 did everything possible to avoid “controversial” subjects like the Pentagon. They wanted to be nonthreatening for the mainstream media, and they were, receiving limited coverage in Canadian papers like the National Post.

CIT wasn’t invited, and Ranke says they wouldn’t have gone if they had been. CIT was invited to the Vancouver 9/11 Hearings but they declined. They didn’t want to be on the same stage as those offering presentations on Judy Wood’s work, video fakery, nuclear devices at the towers, etc.

But was the movement ridiculed because of the diverse range of topics dealt with in Vancouver? Actually, I don’t know if the event got any coverage at all. The hearings went ahead, and the world is still spinning.

Former NASA executive Dwain Deets caught considerable flack for his presentation suggesting that there’s evidence for a nuclear component at Ground Zero. But I liked the fact that a truther with such a solid reputation like Deets’s would take on a controversial area like this, helping to erase some of the oppressive barriers between different 9/11 topics.

Deets evaluated evidence; what the heck’s wrong with that?

Richard Gage of AE911truth got into hot water in February when he and Kevin Ryan agreed to speak on the topic of 9/11 to the annual convention of the Nation of Islam. There was outrage from some in the movement that these two would associate the organization and the movement with the controversial (there’s that word again) Minister Louis Farrakhan.

But Gage and Ryan went ahead regardless. They made their presentations to an audience of thousands more than any truther has reached in a live presentation. Their decision prompted the resignations of AE board members David Chandler and Brian Romanoff.

In this case, a prominent leader in the movement did what was right rather than what was safe and acceptable to credibility cops. As Adam Syed, a frequent 9/11 commentator (here and elsewhere), points out, no one objected when Tony Szamboti and Bob McIlvaine appeared on the Islamophobic Fox News. That was considered a breakthrough.

Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay (I swore I’d never give him any more publicity) ridicules anyone who believes in 9/11 truth. He had a go at Gage, David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker and others in his recent book (or hit piece), Among the Truthers.

But Kay didn’t go after fringe theories to discredit all truthers; in fact, he hardly looked at facts at all. His task was to make these respected truthers seem like well-meaning but ultimately delusional cranks.

He didn’t depend on discussions of holograms or the TV coverage being faked or claims about missiles hitting the Pentagon. He focused on truthers as curiosities (Gee, what makes conspiracy theories so compelling? And why do people persist in these beliefs? What’s missing in these people’s lives that they have to resort to such flights of fantasy?)

It’s not crazy theories the media wants to discredit, it’s the solid ones, the ones that have real traction.

Someone could point to my last post in which I criticize Pentagon pro-planers Bursill and Frank Legge and say I’m not practicing what I preach. But here’s the difference: They’re attacking good, strong evidence against the official story, and I’m calling them on it. They’re telling us that when in doubt we should default to the story that a plane did hit, and they’re trying to drag the movement in their direction.

Even so, I’m not telling people not to share a stage with either of them. I’d actually love to see either put their ideas to the test in a debate with a worthy opponent.

My bottom line is that whether or not one theory or another is shaky or unsupported, we do ourselves a great deal more damage with this incessant self policing than we would just making our case for what we think is the truth and moving on.

The strong research will rise to the top, the unsupported research will be challenged, and the truly discredited areas of investigation will fall in light of better information.

It’s time to refocus. Let’s direct our attacks to the official story and the refusal of the mainstream media to tell the world the truth.

282 comments

Well said, Craig! Even the CIT guys were incensed when I CAME TO THEIR DEFENSE when they were under attack on the Pilots forum. I thought that was simply absurd. It was certainly self-defeating. They have concluded that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. They surely do not believe that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. They have blinders from there.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics records show that Flight 11 and Flight 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11. FAA Registration data shows that the planes that were used for Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005. Are we supposed to ignore evidence like this in order to humor CIT and its friends?

How can planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9/11? and how can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later? Pilots has now shown that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after the time it is supposed to have crashed in Shanksville. They have also shown that Flight 175 was also in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it has crashed into the South Tower.

So what are we supposed to do? We already have enough data to conclude (1) that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; (2) that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; (3) that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and (4) that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower. Those four propositions, by the way, properly define what is called “NPT” (“No Plane Theory”), which is better glossed as “No Big Boeing Crashes Theory” or “No Official Plane Crash Theory”.

So what are we supposed to do with the evidence? Should we ignore it? Should we say that anyone who does research that confirms (1), (2), (3) and (4) is an op and does not belong in the 9/11 Truth movement? But those four propositions not only appears to be true but provably true. Those who deny them are subverting the search for 9/11 Truth.

A message for everybody: For this thread I would like to lay down some guidelines. One is that I don’t want this to become a debate about the evidence for or against planes at the towers, video fakery, all evidence being faked, etc. I am not stopping anyone from discussing these issues, but please continue doing so on the previous thread. On this one I’d like to focus on how the presentation of different kinds of evidence helps or hurts the 9/11 truth cause. What can be done to get through to the public or media? Am I wrong in my conclusions about the fear of ridicule being largely unfounded? That sort of thing. The broad picture.

Also, I want to see a major improvement in how we address each other. I’m not interested in reading a steady exchange of cutting attacks on one individual or another. Attack the substance of each other’s conclusions or facts but keep it civil and drop the personal stuff.

Before this blog turns into another insult-fest, can somebody answer those questions? If people want an honest debate on any subject, they have to at least start setting parameters. Or anarchy ensues.

I think the context was a bit one-sided Craig. That those advocating “video fakery” and NPT are the “whipping boys” in all of this when “video fakery” advocate onebornfree dismisses the NOC witnesses and Jim Fetzer was pushing a “missile at the Pentagon” disinfo video not so long ago. Why wouldn’t CIT want to distance themselves from this behaviour?

The NOC evidence is being openly attacked by the “cred cops” and covertly ridiculed by the likes of Jim Fetzer and other “video fakery” disciples.

I do direct the bulk of my criticism towards the CIT critics. But it would not be fair to pretend that CIT doesn’t do some of the same things that I’m criticizing. I understand that they consider this to be necessary, but I’m offering a different view. You don’t think Aldo telling me to stop mentioning CIT in my articles is a bit over the top? Given my unrelenting support for their work, I think it is.

It’s important to understand that this article is not a commentary on the validity of any of the so-called “fringe” elements of the movement. I’m trying to get across that the “distancing” can have its own harmful effects. One is focusing EXTRA attention on the most contentious internal issues instead of making our broader case. It can also play into the hands of those who would disrupt our efforts. I appreciate the work you and others have done to scrutinize claims made by others in the movement and to show us when the facts don’t add up.

Anyway, your take on this is important and I’m glad to have it. I do think that what I wrote needed to be said.

The very fact that Jim Fetzer showed that “missile video” at the Vancouver Hearings, or that Dennis Cimino points to “something” bringing down the lightpoles or striking Lloyd England’s cab at the Pentagon or that Barbara Honegger pushed the “09:32 explosions” all make the job of keeping the NOC testimony pure/free from muddying, all the more difficult.

On one side, we have the “cred cops”/disinformationists at 911Blogger and TruthAction claiming that the witnesses are all wrong in the face of the glaring fact that they can’t find one witness to counter them. Or putting their faith in an alleged dataset from an “FDR” that’s been in their hands for 5 years and which is pure bullshit.

On the other side we have posters here who are a fair representation of those theories that are attacking and diminishing the NOC evidence from another angle.
“Missiles”, “two planes/missile and plane”, “witness testimony is as fake as the images”, or morphing the NOC evidence and work done on the FDR and alleged aerodynamics involved in the “attack” on the Pentagon on to NPT. In fact demanding that the “all new” definition of what “video fakery” and NPT even means, be accepted!

The “missile/A3Skywarrior/09:32 explosions” have one thing in common. No proof whatsoever.

Aldo and Craig have been under constant attack on both their work and personal lives for six years now. Why should they associate themselves with theories that are detrimental to what they’ve endured to protect?

As for “video fakery” and its offshoots, the very fact that my repeated question, which is a litmus test to see who actually wants to put their cards on the table, has been ignored, shows that certain people would rather continue the never ending circle of aggro.

The fact that they’re ignoring valid criticism by childishly ignoring posts or repeating the same invalid claims is just a slap In the face, not only to me but to you Craig. No different from the assholes like Wolsey and Legge. Hit and run.

I agree that Craig and Aldo shouldn’t associate themselves with anything they don’t want to. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying they are exaggerating the damage that far out theories can do to their evidence. And by taking the same tack as their harshest critics, they make it harder for others (like me) to criticize those critics for their approach to credibility.

Whether Craig and Aldo’s conclusions are found to be persuasive by the majority of truthers (as I hope they are) will depend on the merits of those conclusions, nothing else. I wish them the best in those efforts.

Look, it’s out there and should be discussed. DISCUSSION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ENDORSEMENT. I have observed that we have to examine all of the evidence to decide which is authentic and which is not. That goes with the territory. How do you know which is which? How can you be so arrogant as to PRESUME YOU HAVE ACCESS TO TRUTH?

And as for defining or not defining phrases like, “No Plane Theory”, how in God’s name are we to begin to sort things out IF WE DON’T DEFINE OUR TERMS? This is a nice example of someone who literally does not know what he’s talking about because he is unwilling to define terms. That is a basic preliminary step in the search for truth. Get over it. Grow up!

I think we’re in a bit of an apple and oranges situation here. You seem to be suggesting that I’m saying that attacking other truthers is harmful. I’m not saying that. I’m not saying you shouldn’t make a case against Jim Fetzer or that you shouldn’t challenge those whose positions don’t stand up. You should definitely challenge them!
But focusing too much energy on fighting over theories you think are discredited means that’s all we’re not moving forward; we’re just endlessly spinning our wheels. By focusing on those you think aren’t credible, you give them a higher profile and you allow them to set the agenda.

I’m not saying don’t challenge them, I’m saying don’t overreact to them. If someone were a disinfo agent (I’m not suggesting anyone in particular is here) all they have to do is keep stoking the fires and occupying us in endless arguments.

I wrote: “At some point, we’re told, the idea may be discredited, and the movement will be left looking foolish.”

It’s not bad evidence I’m saying we should be cautious with, it’s exaggerating how this evidence will affect the strong stuff. By all means challenge anyone who you think is peddling bad information, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that the future discrediting of that information will destroy the movement.

Well, since my introduction to that missile-hitting-Pentagon was only quite recent, while the exchange on Pilots forum was a long time ago, this argument won’t cut it. I was told that it was real by someone in the position to know, but I cannot claim to know that to be the case.

The point I raise is that, when there is objective evidence, like the BTS data and the FAA’s own records, which imply something that lots of people want to resist, NPT, what are we supposed to do? Ignore the evidence itself and defer to public relations misconceptions?

If the 9/11 Truth movement does not stand for the truth about 9/11, it stands for nothing. The appeals to PR considerations are tissue-thin forms of criticism of anyone who takes a stand that goes beyond the narrow confines of a predetermined opinion. That is not truth-seeking.

And it seems to me that rogue IS ALREADY VIOLATING CRAIG’S CONSTRAINTS. I have no doubt at all that he does not want to expose falsehoods and reveals truths, but he should
constrain himself or get the boot. Frankly, that could not happen fast enough to please me.

I was told that it was real by someone in the position to know, but I cannot claim to know that to be the case.

Yeah Jim, two posts in and already I have to pull out the “cred cop” badge that’s been pinned on to my lapel.

Jim Fetzer
Aug 30 – 1:51 pm

A friend of mine, Mike Sparks, has informed me that the video footage of the missile strike is faked. I think Gordon’s article is an excellent summary overview and agree about Jesse’s show. But, even though it looks quite realistic and I believe that a missile was fired at the building–very much as the video suggests–this one is fake, which may lead many to infer that no missile hit the Pentagon. This is parallel to the retyping of Bush’s fitness report, which Dan Rather verified–word for work–with the CO who wrote it and the secretary who typed it. But it had been retyped with a newer font, which meant that the document was faked and many therefore inferred its content was false. This case is parallel.

Jim Fetzer says:
June 25, 2012 at 9:09 am
You have me on this one, slice! I had forgotten that Mike had corrected me about it. It was the last item I added to my presentation in the belief that it was interesting enough to show. Some were impressed by it, but I am going to clarify that this appears to be fake. Thanks about this!

There are arguers on both sides. I waffle on this one BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW WHO IS RIGHT. I like Mike, but he’s not always right. I like Gordon, and he is almost never wrong. So I replied with the crucial point: it doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong, because (a) the video is other there (it exists); (b) it is an interesting video, whether authentic or not; and (c) I do not know whether it is authentic or it is not authentic, but then I don’t believe I have made that claim, have I? Who cares? If you want to bash your head against a wall because you think you have something, be my guest. I have explained this several times.

And it seems to me that rogue IS ALREADY VIOLATING CRAIG’S CONSTRAINTS. I have no doubt at all that he does not want to expose falsehoods and reveals truths, but he should
constrain himself or get the boot. Frankly, that could not happen fast enough to please me.

My only response to this is that, when it ‘seems’ to Craig McKee that I am “already violating Craig’s constraints,” I will perk up and take note.

I am not going to argue with you about any of this on this thread. But I am going to state my opinions as I can best formulate them.

This is completely false. I have been impressed by the NOC (“North of Citgo”) witnesses from the beginning. I wish some of you would bother to check my views — which are not a mystery — before you do this “Fetzer-bashing”. This is another example of violating Craig’s policy, which I find offensive. It is a false claim about me, it is not source, and there is ample proof that I APPLAUD the NOC evidence!

In general, convergence of opinion between different investigators is only expected when they are (a) considering the same alternative hypotheses (b) based upon the same body of evidence and (c) employing the same rules of reasoning. It would be great if everyone were to read just the first few sections of my study, “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”, because I lay out the elements of scientific reasoning there in a form that is both concise but rigorous. I am quite sure that at least one person will lampoon that suggestion, not because it is not a great idea but because it might enable others to see through phony arguments and ignoring data to support conclusions that would not be acceptable considering ALL the evidence!

Before this blog turns into another insult-fest, can somebody answer those questions? If people want an honest debate on any subject, they have to at least start setting parameters. Or anarchy ensues.

I think the context was a bit one-sided Craig. That those advocating “video fakery” and NPT are the “whipping boys” in all of this when “video fakery” advocate onebornfree dismisses the NOC witnesses and Jim Fetzer was pushing a “missile at the Pentagon” disinfo video not so long ago. Why wouldn’t CIT want to distance themselves from this behaviour?

The NOC evidence is being openly attacked by the “cred cops” and covertly ridiculed by the likes of Jim Fetzer and other “video fakery” disciples.

For the sake of “Truth in reporting” please permit me to ask you the following:

As it hasn’t been my understanding that OBF “dismisses the NOC witnesses”, (and as it appears he’s not talking to you!), could you please supply a quote from OBF that states this, or a quote from him which gave you this impression?

I should note though, that i get the ‘feeling’ you sometimes take some of OBF’s writings far far too literally, whereas at other times you don’t take what he’s actually trying to say, seriously enough!

I could be wrong in my ‘understanding’ of course, so would like to see some more appropriate ‘evidence’ that would make me change my perception of what’s going on between you two.

Regarding Jim Fetzer, then again it’s my understanding that he has distanced himself from the “missile at the pentagon”, and has certainly acknowledged this video to be a fake in previous posts!

And where did you get that impression from, that Jim has “covertly ridiculed” the NOC evidence?

My understanding here, on the other hand, is that he on several occasions has given undisguised support to CIT, so would you please kindly elaborate more on this comment of yours?

Tambourine man, please know how much I appreciate those like you who are doing what you can to keep the discussion on the straight and narrow. Some of this stuff has no basis in fact and reflects the research deficiencies or utter carelessness of those who post them. I want you to know how much I appreciate your integrity and willingness to speak up when abuses like these are taking place. Thanks for that!

Or the posts on this very forum. The video is horseshit. no hmms or haas or grey areas. If we can’t even agree on this, I give up. Diplomacy and solidarity with like-minded people is one thing but you have to draw a line somewhere.

As for OBF, why not ask him what he’s been ignoring over and over (my questions) and what his opinions are on the NOC witnesses?

Well, let’s see. There is a lot of fake evidence, such as the piece of fuselage on the lawn, which has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995 by James Hanson, an attorney from Columbus, OH. So since that is fake (planted), should we not discuss it?

The missile video was sent to me by someone who has excellent intel connections. He told me it was authentic–and more than one other person has said the same. By introducing it, I am not therefore endorsing it. Do you not understand the distinction? This is not subtle.

I do not know whether it is authentic or not. But I do know (a) that it is out there, (b) that it is very interesting either way, and (c) that it would be irresponsible NOT to discuss it. So I am at a loss why you keep making something out of this. You appear to be bewildered.

I would like to clarify my position as far as all of these questions are concerned.

I am not concerned about the “credibility” of the Truth movement. I don’t think the general public even remembers there is a Truth movement, in fact they don’t have the attention span to remember much of anything past the last commercial they saw on TV.

All of my commentary is based on whether I find the comments of those in the conversation on any particular thread is based on reason and rationality.

I do not consider myself to be a “credibility cop” in the sense it is being used in the lexicon of this article. I think it is beneficial to investigate whether certain ideas pass muster as reasonable, simply for the sake of reason itself.

As far as being characterized as ‘overly aggressive’ by a few of the commentators here. This is in my view a ploy to avoid standing to reason, in some cases so persistently as to cause pause and reflection and wonderment. After all, in this society as in any other there are people with less than lucid thought processes.

I think it is also a valid question, due to our knowledge that there are operators infiltrating the movement ala Sunstein, to make note of particularly obstinate and scientifically absurd assertions. To take note of and point out certain modes of rhetorical trickery, and clever Orwellian devices meant to obscure the English language.

It may be a matter of parsing whether it is personalities such as Legge and Bursill, or Brian Good are fair game because their particular flavor of propaganda is more bitter to the tastes of our host and moderator, Craig McKee; and others are tolerated as his concerns lie elsewhere. I think Craig has been more than fair in his moderation and tolerance of the varied posters commenting on these threads…and I do mean MORE than fair in many instances. But this has to do with my own biases – which I personally believe are based on terms of rationality in debate.

As an adjunct to the above, I will be straight forward and say that I do find a few posters here utterly irrational, science challenged and or disingenuous. I have been outspoken on these matters to be sure. I will also say that I do believe that there is a poster here that is a mole and a fraud. And anyone who reads this blog regularly won’t have to guess to who I am referring to.

I am exceedingly curious to see how the commentary continues on this thread.

You’re quite right that I am going to react to “propaganda” in my own subjective way. But I make no claim that my articles are anything other than my opinion. And I don’t feel that all “irrational” positions demand identical treatment. Not all poorly thought out (or dishonest) positions are created equal

I have openly stated before (I think I have, anyway) that I have only ever banned four people from this blog. In this article I mentioned two of them (de Boer and Good). But while there’s no one more objectionable than the former, aka Snowcrash, I don’t write about him often at all. This is my point. When something needs saying, I say it. But I’m not following his other comments on other forums so I can attack him on a daily basis. He’s not worth my time.

As I say, I admit that my own opinions are based on what others will read as my personal biases.

As you know, I have never had a complaint on the way you handle your blog, nor of any of the articles you have posted. I admire both aspects, of your writing and personal integrity.

I think more than anything else, I am of the opinion that the Truth movement has no problems with ‘credibility’ – it has a problem of being utterly ignored by the Public Relations Regime, but for rare moments when it is ridiculed by the mainstream press.

The movement’s essential problem is that it is for all intents and purposes, INVISIBLE.

I think this will be the case until the present paradigm collapses. It is neither my wish, nor to my delight that such is the case…oh but though things could be different. But here we are, this is the world and the system as it stands.

I am not critical of your subjective stance, I am simply aware of it. I am also in agreement in your views as far as the points you make in this article. I certainly have made clear my views on Frank Legge, and by extension those who hold his same views and mimic his same techniques.

In other words I do not have an argument with you.

I do have arguments with others, and will continue to – BUT only on the terms you make clear. Despite what others may make of me, I do not enjoy the flame wars that have erupted on these threads from time to time. I will admit that I can be as caustic as I am given.

However, I would have much rather spent the time and energy expended on the previous thread to go more into my personal experience with that email exchange I had with Frank Legge. But again, this interjection of “No-Planes” and “Video Fakery” flooded in. And as I point out in that thread: The technique of “ignore them and maybe they will go away” or “Don’t Feed The Trolls” simply does not work.
Try that, and you will see the thread swamped with troll droppings.

Anyway, I would rather get the opinions of others here than take up too much of this thread with my own. I hope all of the ‘regulars’ do drop in and give us their take on what condition our condition is in.

Another veiled but nasty attack by rogue. Not only does the BTS data, FAA records, and Pilots own studies support NPT (“No Plane Theory” or “No Big Boeing Crashes Theory” or “None of the “official planes” actually crashed” theory) but I believe if the public were to be informed that the evidence supports the conclusion that all four of the crash sites were faked, they would be astonished and dumbfounded and VERY, VERY PISSED OFF. So I think those who suggest we can’t tell the people are blowing smoke. THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW THE TRUTH–and part of the truth about 9/11 is No Plane Theory.

Excellent idea, Craig. I think in this context it would be wise to take Alan Sabrosky’s advice (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28438.htm) and simplify the arguments. The great failure of the previous thread about the Vancouver Hearings is that it degenerated into personal attacks and repetitious, arcane arguments that were too involved for anyone to follow.

Getting one’s knickers in a twist over the incendiary capacity of nanothermite, for example, is a sideshow that distracts and bores people who might otherwise be persuaded by focusing on obvious, basic problems that are easy to agree on: the implosion of WTC7; Israeli participation in the attack; and the utter lack of evidence of a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon.

If the 911 Movement focused on these topics, unity would be much more likely.

Greg Felton’s post reflects another reason why convergence of opinion can be hard to come by. We all of necessity render judgments based upon our own knowledge and beliefs and tend to value or disvalue information when it is relevant to concerns that matter to us. The incapacity of nanothermite to pulverize concrete or decimate steel is crucial to evaluate alternative theories regarding how the Twin Towers were done, but it is far removed from the issues that matter most to him. In cases like this, it is better to let those who know more take the lead and not diminish its value or importance. None of us should assume we know all there is to know about 9/11.

I see you are another one of those pushing this “consensus” angle. That is fine if that is your opinion.

The reason I maintain my position on nanothermites is NOT because I necessarily find them to be sufficient in themselves to bring the towers down, but because they have been proven to exist unreacted in the WTC Dust samples as per Harrit and Jones.

As Jones says:

““The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.”~Jones

To repeat: “There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them..”

This is the smoking gun the movement was seeking since the day of the events.

It is my opinion that those who attempt to degrade the vital importance of this have an agenda.

Both Fetzer and ’rogue miss the point. The nanonthermite issue is important if your an expert in the collapse of the buildings and want ti understand the minutiae of the matter.. If the 911 truth movement wants to gain more traction, it needs to separate arcane arguments from those that appeal to the broad mass of people who do not want to, or cannot, wade through the hostility.

I accept that nanothermites were used, but I can also accept that other devices were used, too. I find the mini-nuke argument compelling. The previous thread degenerated into a slug-fest between Fetzer and ’rogue that accomplished nothing and served only to obfuscate the issue for someone who did not have a background in physics or hours of time to research the matter. In short, proving that the Isramerican government committed the attack does not require us to get mired in the nanothermite debate.

It is not the case that “The organizers of the Toronto Hearings did everything possible
to avoid ‘controversial’ subjects like the Pentagon.’ Both myself and David Ray Griffin
addressed the Pentagon. The organizers also invited witness April Gallop, as well as the former head of the Star Wars program Bob Bowman and former Navy and civilian airliner pilot Capt. Ted Muga, the latter to address the aerodynamic impossibility of a 757 flying the official flight path, but personal reasons made them unable to attend.
As for the claim in the thread on the previous posting that there is no evidence for a 9:32:30 violent event at the Pentagon, this had to have been made without having actually reviewed the evidence, which is in fact from many different converging lines and compelling, and in no way contradicts the ‘bottom line’ fact that the Pentagon
faked a plane crash at the official story alleged impact point, on which my findings
agree with CIT’s. Please look at the documented facts athttp://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/barb-honeggers-vancouver-powerpoint/ .
Barbara Honegger

Yes, you and Dr. Griffin did indeed speak on the Pentagon, but we can’t really say the subject was embraced by the organizers, can we? Your talk was allotted less time than other presentations (is 25 minutes correct?) and Dr. Griffin spent half of one session on the Pentagon (45 minutes on that and 45 on Flight 93). I acknowledge the Gallop invitation as well as the invitations to Ted Muga and Robert Bowman. But isn’t it fair to say the organizers wanted to stay away from “controversial” subjects and that “no impact at the Pentagon” was a subject they didn’t want front and centre? Given that others were unable to attend to talk about the Pentagon, why didn’t organizers find a way to give you a full share of time for your presentation?

It is important here to note that internal explosion(s) between 9:30 and 9:32 a.m. on the first and/or second floors of the west wedge of the Pentagon are not inconsistent with there possibly having also been a near-simultaneous and/or later impact by some airborne object much smaller than a 757/Flight 77 — a piloted plane, an unmanned drone, or a missile — into the same or a nearby section of the building. Indeed, if a heat-seeking missile hit the building following the explosion(s),
the heat from the earlier explosion(s) would have become the target for the missile. (See below for reports that A-3 Sky Warrior planes were retrofitted shortly before 9/11 enabling them to be remotely controlled, and fitted with missiles.) More specifically, if a missile approached along the south-of-the-Citgo-station “light pole” path and hit the west side heat target where the explosives had already gone off just as the plane CIT’s witnesses saw approach along the north-of-the- station path overflew the building through the smoke cloud, it would explain why some of CIT’s witnesses believed the plane caused the impact noise actually caused by the simultaneously-hitting missile.

According to you, there were first internal explosions, followed by an aircraft witnessed on the NOC flightpath that flew over the building, followed by, or simultaneous to, an “airborne object” on the official path. Correct?

Your basic premise is that, notwithstanding whether the operation was carried out at 09:32am or 09:37am, there had to be an aircraft with a wingspan large enough to knock down the poles on the official path.

Who actually witnessed this “airborne object” on the official path? And how did those people who witnessed the NOC aircraft fail to see the “airborne object” (or plane) on the official path?

Secondly..

The author also interviewed the taxi driver whose cab is the only car visible still parked on I-395 above the Pentagon lawn looking down at the west face after the other cars have left the freeway (not Lloyd England). This taxi can be seen in overhead photos taken on the morning of 9/11 and viewable on the Internet.

Who? Can you post images of “the only car visible”? It sounds very much like Lloyd.

CIT’s research and evidence is likewise not corrupted by ANYTHING else. Even if Craig and Aldo themselves started speaking out against their own evidence it would not corrupt it. The ONLY way to damage their evidence and research is to show that it is wrong with better research and better evidence. The whole concept of other people’s opinions and arguments rubbing off somehow and diminishing CIT’s evidence is BS. It is a non starter. Craig and Aldo could have gone to Vancouver and given a stellar presentation and nothing ANYONE else said or did in Vancouver would have tarnished it at all. No one else rubs off on them that is a fact. Sorry but the whole credibility cop thing is a bogus, dead end, free speech crushing, fool’s errand, that leads exactly nowhere except to alienation. No matter who does it, credibility policing is counterproductive and divisive.

I notice that although I post here I have not gotten any Jim Fetzer cooties on me or any Craig McKee cooties on me. So neither man has damaged my credibility. Guess what, neither one ever will. The only one that can damage my credibility is me.

P.S. I do not think Jim Fetzer or Craig McKee has cooties BTW although I do disagree quite a bit with the former and agree quite a bit with the latter.

I agree completely with what you’ve said. We waste so much time and energy worrying about contamination that we end up causing some of the damage we’re trying to prevent. I think having CIT in Vancouver would have really been something. (let me just say that rumours that I have cooties have been somewhat exaggerated)

To Jim: Your comment awaiting moderation needs to be on the other thread.

One point I want to add has to do with the inherent arrogance of credibility policing. To be a cred cop you have to believe that everything you say must be right and everything said by those whom you are policing must be wrong. It is practically a God complex to behave as a credibility cop when you think about it. How do most people react to arrogant a-holes? I rest my case.

As you well know, it is not my style to , “veil”, intimate, allude to , or use innuendo in my commentary here.

But, as per your plea for a certain amount of civility, I spoke in the 3rd person in my first remarks on this thread.

It is not my doing, nor my responsibly that the person alluded to decided to rear up barking and identify himself.

Now that this has come to pass, let it be noted that I stated clearly that I don’t think this is the time or place for a continuance of our personal confrontation. Adding as well, that while I have a great deal of patience, there is a point to where if stretched to far, I will respond in like manner to these taunts.

Actually you do. You most definitely made a veiled attack against Jim Fetzer, and the fact that you used the third person to do so proves the disingenuousness of your bumptious claim. Had you not made your veiled attack, Fetzer would not have replied, and your last post would not have been made.

Please leave your vendetta off this thread and pick a fight somewhere else.

“Those who deny them are subverting the search for 9/11 Truth.”~Jim Fetzer, on his very first post.

So Greg Felton,

Do you have any doubt whatsoever who Jim was speaking about as; “Those who deny them..”? Who he is accusing of, “subverting the search for 9/11 Truth?”

A “veiled attack” is on the hands of the first aggressor. A veiled response, is in the nature of self defense. It is in such logical form that one acknowledges the sequence of things, where one can locate the proximate cause of following events and reactions.

Fetzer’s comment was a generic criticism; he made no “veiled attack” against you or anyone else. If you took Fetzer’s comment as a personal attack that’s your problem. On the other hand, you are guilty of making a deliberate, veiled attack against one, specific poster, to wit:

“I will also say that I do believe that there is a poster here that is a mole and a fraud. And anyone who reads this blog regularly won’t have to guess to who I am referring to.”

There is no doubt that you are referring to Fetzer, so your claims of self-defence and pretense to ethical superiority are bogus. You are behaving a provocateur and setting about to monopolize this thread with a petty vendetta the way you did the other ones. Craig McKee should cut you off if you persist.

Willy (Hybridrogue1) and I went toe to toe, so to speak, during one of the first blogs that we crossed paths on the NOC testimony and Pentagon in general. I’m as stubborn as the next man and I stepped back, composed myself and answered any criticisms, doubts or anything else Hybridrogue1 had to throw at me (in the let’s just call it “flowery” way that he does lol). The reason that we both came out the other side is not because he saw validity in my argument through links, quotes, corroboration and debunked claims by the likes of Legge and Jeff Hill, but because we went into the nitty gritty details that are completely lacking and in some cases completely flawed from some of the posters here.

The same can be said of the mammoth NPT thread that saw an articulate, intelligent poster here called Seńor El Once floor me with his honesty in at least acknowledging the validity of my counterarguments to NPT (not blowing my own trumpet Once, it takes a bigger man to do what you did). I enjoy his and Hybridrogue1’s sparring (to a point!) even though I range from not agreeing with (his earlier NPT claims)! to not having the savy to fully understand (nukes)

What I object to is that because I, or Hybridrogue1, are categorized by some here as semi-“cred cops” for daring to question the likes of Jim Fetzer or onebornfree who are just as guilty, if not more (Greg Fulton) of slinging the same shit about the room with unveiled snidey remarks (shills, trained monkeys, useful idiots to name but a few) or insinuations about receiving a government envelope at the end of the month.

“Shills” that believe (ranging between us) that there was no impact at the Pentagon and that the aircraft overflew the building, that the towers and WTC7 were CDs, that Israel had a central role in 9/11, That the OCT is a crock of shit basically. Please..

When you have evidence to form an argument, please share it with us. The proof that no plane hit the Pentagon and that all four crash sites were fabrications is abundant and compelling. See, for example, “Were the 9/11 crash sites fabricated?” (13 June 2012):

Good article once again Craig. I agree with pretty much everything you said, though I also see where OSS is coming from too. In my opinion, we SHOULD call people out when they do disseminate ACTUAL disinfo.

Some, however, take the view that even if something is true, it “sounds crazy” and turns the public off.

I’ve seen Jon Gold suggest that even if controlled demolition is true, many members of the public are under the impression that it has been debunked by Popular Mechanics, etc., and that therefore, it’s not the best piece of evidence to lead with. We have also seen the same rhetoric regarding a flyover at the Pentagon. I’ve also seen people remark that we should not focus on Israeli involvement because it gives the MSM potential ammo to paint us as somehow “anti-semitic.”

But absolutely, when someone continues to promote faulty information after it has been pointed out to them, they SHOULD be called on it.

I agree with this distinction. I do think we have to call people on disinfo. But we can’t allow this to determine our agenda. We don’t want disinfo to gain a higher profile because we focus on it exclusively.

I think this is a very powerful and complete argument. It cleared up for me how there could have actually been a plane crash near the helipad, in that the plane exploded outside of the Pentagon and only started a huge fire, not penetrating the building. Her photo and witness testimony is very strong. The whole presentation is strong, and fits in well with the CIT information as well. I don’t see how CIT can feel that it conflicts in any way with their information.

We still have the necessity for the faked downing of the light poles, and I think that is a small matter involving everything else as a distraction while the pre-bent poles were pulled up from the manholes and the others previously unbolted, were taken down the same route.
Again, who knows how much of an underground facility/bunker may be under the Pentagon? The military has such underground facilities built all over the country.

Again I want to commend Ms Honneger for an excellent piece of research and presentation.

Well, I hardly think that photos of rubbish (small metallic pieces of no discernable origin) qualifies as “evidence” of a plane crash. In fact, her use of the phrase “plane” when she is talking about a Global Hawk and, when I asked here where it went, she said, “It went ‘Poof!'”, hardly qualifies as serious research. That you are commending it should cause any serious student concerns about what she claims.

And is she still claiming that there were internal explosions and a “missile”?

Internal explosions, the NOC aircraft that now didn’t fly over but crashed on the lawn and desintegrated (but didn’t injure 4 people in the immediate area and left no discernible wreckage) a missile/airborne object on the official path…what else? What is the alleged sequence of events??

No she isn’t claiming the NOC aircraft didn’t fly over — did you read her presentation?
She is claiming internal explosions and a second little white plane blew up near the heliport.
The NOC plane flew over.

I am glad to defer to you or Adam Sayed on matters Pentagon, as long as the points of dispute are made clear. I trust both of your judgement, but still want some reasoning to go with it.
. . . . . . . .
Okay, I have that PDF up, but it is still sluggish to scroll…it begins with a piece by Jim Marrs..it’s frozen at the moment…jeeeez
ww

“The author also interviewed the taxi driver whose cab is the only
car visible still parked on I-395 above the Pentagon lawn looking down
at the west face after the other cars have left the freeway (not Lloyd
England). This taxi can be seen in overhead photos taken on the morning
of 9/11 and viewable on the Internet. The driver said his was the last car
allowed onto that section of I-395 before police put up a barricade and
that he decided not to immediately leave the scene like the others “because
I realized this was history and I wanted to see for myself.” He stated that
he saw no evidence of a plane having hit the building nor any visible plane
pieces on the lawn at the time he arrived, which was after the first violent
event had occurred at the building, as black smoke was already streaming
up and to the right from inside-the-building fires.”

Yeah, reading my response back you could interpret the multiple question marks as “yellng”. Thing is, I’m in the middle of making the eyewitness post of mine more readable and updated (160+ alleged testimonies) to finally lay to rest Legge’s claims in the OP of this blog. And when I saw this new turn of events, my head nearly flew off like the “alien spider” in “The Thing”. Ha! 😉

There actually is one way of practically testing this theory (I saw it posted before but had been toying with the idea). Find a cheap battery powered clock, set it to 09:37/8 and drop it from above head height to see if the minute hand drops down. I’m actually going to buy one tomorrow and see(as if my partner doesn’t think I’m mad enough as it is..) but it’s better if a few people try it (and takes photos if possible to upload here).

I’ll try and find a html version of her paper and go through it, but the “small plane” on the official path isn’t supported by anybody.

There are some similarities to the PDF and the Powerpoint, but the Powerpoint is much more concise and has a lot of new info.

I was hoping to find the Terry Mitchell testimony from the Powerpoint – so I could have text to copy, but it isn’t in the PDF. Mitchell was frome the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Audio Visual division. He was given immediate access to the A-E Drive to take official photos…he said there was no sign of aircraft parts anywhere.

I spoke about this before as info I lost when my last computer got killed.

“The author also interviewed the taxi driver whose cab is the only
car visible still parked on I-395 above the Pentagon lawn looking down
at the west face after the other cars have left the freeway (not Lloyd
England). This taxi can be seen in overhead photos taken on the morning
of 9/11 and viewable on the Internet. The driver said his was the last car..

She says that it’s not Lloyde but look at this image compared to what she’s describing::

The road he’s on, Route 27, runs off of the I-395 motorway and the alleged impact side is the “west face”. i mean, who else can she be referring to?

I’m beginning to wonder whether this is a losing battle. I seems like people have limited interest in discussions about where the movement needs to go. They only seem to want to debate the scientific evidence.

I must admit, I’m intrigued by the budding discussion on Barbara Honegger’s new presentation. I haven’t decided whether to route this over to the last thread or allow it here based on its relation to the “controversial” evidence aspect of my piece. But as soon as WW praised it I knew we were in for a debate.

Since you seem to have actually read Honneger’s article, why don’t you tell me, the points you disagree with.

She shows an illustration that the Gov put out that points to three exit points for the aircraft, then a modified one put out later that just shows the one. That is all I saw in the presentation, concerning that.

I went through the Honneger presentation this morning – it all seemed to stack up, and none of it seemed to contradict the CIT info in anyway.

I would be more than willing to adjust my views on this if someone who has actually read the piece by Honneger can point out what her errors are and how they conflict with the NOC info.

My impression is that it all fits together. But like I said, I just now read the paper, and haven’t had time to really mull it over – or have it be taken apart by someone more deeply involved in the Pentagon issue.

Now, I guess Craig needs to decide whether this is the place for such corrections to be pointed out, or not.

I certainly had no idea of the reaction I would get for thinking her presentation made sense. But I am willing to learn more. Adam seems to be the one who is the real expert here on this…

I appreciate your frustration, Craig. The arcane science does not engender consensus or even allow for acceptable differences of opinion. If ’rouge wants to go rogue on nanothermite, why let him, Jim Fetzer and anyone else have their own thread where they can go at each other. On the first thread this argument got mired in so much acrimony and repetition it was impossible to make any sense out of it. Perhaps someone could evaluate the specific arguments to help separate reason from ranting.

I should think that any reasonably intelligent person could read the explanations presented in the argumentation. I think you just don’t want to try to understand it.
It really isn’t that difficult.

But that is okay – different strokes for different folks. But, if someone were to go through it and explain it to you – who would that be? Who would you trust? Would it be Fetzer just because he has certificates from academia?

I think that is naive in this day of total systemic corruption. But that is my opinion, and people can take or leave them at their pleasure.

However I have stated the applicable physics in my argumentation in the thread you find so baffling.

Just understanding that Newton’s Laws of Mechanics – the Three Laws of Motion is necessarily sequential, really puts this in perspective. The first two laws set the ‘frame’ concerning the meeting of two objects, whether both are in movement or one is in movement and the other at rest. Once this frame is set, the third law of equal-and -opposite — action-and-reaction come into play.

I don’t want to lose the thread (no pun intended) but I can live with the Honegger topic being batted back and forth here. At least it’s fresh and given CIT’s feeling that Barbara’s conclusions could subject the movement to ridicule, it is relevant.

Ha, I Well, I was part of the monthly conference call of the 9/11 Truth Teleconference when Aldo Marquis of CIT and Barbara Honegger went at it (I think it was in April). They both believe no large plane crashed, but they are quite opposed otherwise.

More specifically, if a missile
approached along the south-of-the-Citgo-station “light pole” path and
hit the west side heat target where the explosives had already gone off
just as the plane CIT’s witnesses saw approach along the north-of-thestation
path overflew the building through the smoke cloud, it would
explain why some of CIT’s witnesses believed the plane caused the
impact noise actually caused by the simultaneously-hitting missile.”

There may be other CIT citations or mention, but this is one that I found right off.

It’s late here, so I’ll just post two entrys of mine at Pilots on the “missile” scenario.

I know it’s pointless trying to convince anybody that their own gut instinct is wrong unless they come to their own conclusions but even though there’s no definitive proof and it’s based on my own personal speculation, these images always stood out to me as a very realistic and possible controlled method of covering a lot of bases from damaging the facade to spraying “debris” :

I can’t see how any “flying craft” or “missile” could physically plough through this obstacle (the former), or how a “missile” would not detonate prematurely on striking it.

The NOC aircraft couldn’t physically cause it. A smaller modified craft’s engine raises just as many problems. I was never in the military but was raised in a military state (N. Ireland) but I’ve seen the damage caused by improvised mortars primarily used against fortified bases

If those people could do it, imagine it from a military perspective. A recoilless mortar mounted in the generator trailer with the calculated amount of HE?

The facade was allegedly a mesh of tubing bolting the floors together. The larger bolts were found on the first floor of the renovated section.

Here’s a question. Given the topography of the area immediately before the Pentagon, where would they fire a missile from?? Did the “missile” pull up? How’d they get that cardboard cut out shape of an “aircraft” with a missile? How did it suddenly stop at C Ring and leave the wall of B Ring unscathed?

(Edit: now imagine that there were internal explosions as Barbara Honegger says and that there was a path cleared – the “missile” would only have the facade to penetrate)

Rumsfeld and others were allegedly in “A” Ring. Would they risk an errant missile blasting its way through the building? Wasn’t a limited fatality rate at the Pentagon more desirable? Take out the accountants? 0% survival rate?

The source of the smoke that morning was mainly from the generator trailer.

“Here’s a question. Given the topography of the area immediately before the Pentagon, where would they fire a missile from?? Did the “missile” pull up? How’d they get that cardboard cut out shape of an “aircraft” with a missile? How did it suddenly stop at C Ring and leave the wall of B Ring unscathed?” ~OSS

I get the feeling that Honneger has adjusted her theory since you last read her.
She does not propose that the “missile” penetrated the building, but that it blew up to the side and behind the helipad. That is what is in her Powerpoint presentation shown in Vancouver.

She is saying that the internal explosives blew out the walls where the official story claims the plane hit. Again, she agrees that there was a north side approach by a plane resembling the airliner and that it flew over the Pentagon. The little white plane flew in more from the south and blew up near the helipad.

I know that I have that much straight with what is in her Powerpoint.

All of the internal damage was caused by bombs in her scenario.

The missile shot from the construction trailer fails, as the walls are clearly blown outward, with close inspection of the gap – you can see pillars bent out…even the chain-link fence is blown out and wraps partially around one of the parked cars.

There is visual evidence that the facade behind the helipad was blown out the way. The debris field is 99% blown towards the helipad (the heliport has shrapnel marks and the titan firetruck beside it suffered bizarre superficial damage)

The generator scenario (IMO) was to cause superficial damage to the facade and provide the smoke. That’s just my personal speculation based on events and visual evidence.

The “small white plane” would have had to have been simultaneous with the NOC aircraft. Nobody saw this spectacle of two planes crossing the lawn or travelling through the poles.

Very thoughtful and sensible article! Taking a brief step back from intra-9/11 quarrels, it bears remembering that the most alarming layer of 9/11 is neither the false flag itself (culminating with the televised criminal controlled demolition of the twin towers), nor the transparent cover and protection the U.S. government bestowed upon the 9/11 terrorists (culminating with assurances that Building 7’s sudden, rapid and complete disintegration could be due only to an office fire), but the censorship thereof by virtually all leaders who should have denounced it (liberal leaders, socialist leaders, union leaders, peace leaders, green leaders, anti-poverty leaders, Muslim leaders, terrorist leaders) and instead have been sending their credulous followers on wild goose chases after the numerous evil 9/11-inspired policies and activities. The currently best introduction to the 9/11 censorship appears to be at http://www.911censorship.com/twin%20towers'%20censorship.htm.

The 9/11 censorship is responsible for 9/11 Truth’s difficulty to gain traction. A large part of the public (10%? 20%?) seem to know that the twin towers were destroyed intentionally, but bully pulpits do not reflect this level of knowledge. Instead, as Craig correctly reminds us, bully pulpits largely ignore 9/11 dissidence. When they mention it, they usually dismiss, ridicule or demonize dissidents. To the point of the 9/11 leaders Craig criticizes, 9/11 censors take as fodder some 9/11 theories that they view as vulnerable. But they also take as fodder mainstream 9/11 theories, such as the twin towers’ criminal controlled demolition. They also take as fodder personal beliefs, habits or traits.

Craig’s credibility cops have a point. The idea of trimming 9/11 dissidence every time the 9/11 censors come up with a major hit piece has the advantage that the 9/11 censors can no longer use the same argument. For instance, should the NY Times ridicule Alex Jones over his denial of human-induced climate change and 9/11 dissidence by association, policing 9/11 dissidents so as to muzzle or expel anybody who shares Jones’ view will prevent the NY Times or any other 9/11 censor from basing an attack on this topic. One will wonder, though, what will remain of 9/11 dissidence if the same policy is followed after Fox News later runs a hit piece against David Ray Griffin for his belief that human-induced climate change deserves much attention once 9/11 is over.

Once 9/11 dissidents and their leaders accept that the 9/11 Master conspirators control just about all bully pulpits, they will find that they stand to gain much by regarding these bully pulpits as their natural opponents and other 9/11 dissidents as their natural allies. They may want to take a page from the book of Christianity, namely Calvin’s idea that intra-Christian wars harmed Christianity and that a simple remedy would be to accept that each Christian would have the ultimate authority to her/his interpretation of the bible, that each such interpretation would be respected, and that the success of a given church and its interpretation would be measured by its ability not to fight competing churches, but to attract Christians and to influence its community. Accordingly, 9/11 dissidents would be well advised to accept as a bona fide ally anybody who affirms the terrorist controlled demolition of the twin towers before their complete evacuation and identify as an opponent any leader who denies it.

Accordingly, here is the 9/11 dissident’s current litmus test: trust leaders who affirm the twin towers’ terrorist controlled demolition, mistrust leaders who do not, and provide objective justifications for exceptions.

The 9/11 censorship…the more people understand it, the faster the 9/11 farce will be over.

i’d say that, within the 9/11 truth movement, there is room for both (1) the first amendment/free-speech type approach that craig advocates and allows here on “truth and shadows;” and (2) the idea that we should stick to this or that type of “consensus” evidence to bring the mainstream media around to 9/11 truth.

different strokes for different folks. “the movement” can go forward on both (and other) fronts, i submit. just let’s live and let live.

as for item (1), i am totally in favor of the approach craig allows here. to me, this is what freedom of speech is all aboiut.

as for item (2), even tho my gut and experience tell me we’d be better off saying “F*** the mainstream media, they are complicit and will never come around. let’s focus elsewhere,” i must of course acknowledge that i may be wrong about that. and so to whoever wants to proceed along that course, i say “good luck,” and, “if you think i might be able to help in some way, let me know and i’ll consider.”

as for the 9/11 credibility cops…someone brought up an anology to religion and it is so like that. that is, the credibility cops’ approach is so very akin to “our religion is the only TRUE religion.” very odd, and suspect.

this was shocking: “In fact, my [Craig’s] tolerance for discussion of some of these issues in the comments section of Truth and Shadows has led CIT’s Marquis to ask me to stop mentioning CIT or him by name in my articles. He thinks my ardent support for CIT’s conclusions is harming their efforts.” harming their efforts how? where? in what way? with whom? i’d really like to know.

I agree with what you say here. I have always felt that Truth and Shadows is special because of the freedom of expression allowed here. I think overall that is why it has grown into one of the most popular 9/11 sites.

There are certainly enough 9/11 sites that have a dogmatic approach to a certain viewpoint…and I don’t need to name them as everyone has spoken to this before here.

There will be problems from time to time in such a democratic forum. And it is susceptible to ‘trolls’ and infiltrators. But I think the intelligence of the commentators is high enough here that these will always be called out. Whether a consensus is formed as to who is the troll, is not as important as having the arguments out in the open for the public readership to parse for themselves.

The arguments do become chaotic, and some such as Greg Felton don’t want to wade through them…probably quite a few feel that way. Well, they don’t have to do they?

It’s not that I don’t want to wade through arguments, but they are presented so badly, so venomously and so repetitiously. So much petty bickering takes place that the larger picture of educating the public about Sept. 11 gets lost.

I appreciate your willingness to be open to different approaches. I’ve expressed my concerns about the consensus approach in a few articles, and I’ve also expressed my hope that good comes out of the effort. I think your presence on the Consensus Panel is one of the positives for sure.

And I think your view on whether it’s worth trying to reach the media is reasonable. My concern with the effort is that we don’t go to them with a watered-down version of what we know just to maintain consensus. I don’t want to see some of our very best evidence left out because it’s claimed to be controversial by a few individuals.

But I’m all for hitting the media from a variety of directions. The complaints in Britain over BBC coverage of 9/11 offer another approach that I support.

As to Marquis and his request: I’m not going to try and summarize his position on this because that could create new issues if I don’t characterize his views precisely. I’ll will say that I have not received any such request from Craig Ranke (with whom I have had cordial relations), and therefore I know it is not “the” CIT position.

craig,
understood why you don’t want to go to the mainstream media “with a watered-down version of what we know just to maintain consensus.” maybe the thinking is that a watered-down version is about all the media and the american public can tolerate. for some reason i am reminded of the nixon impeachment hearings and how the house committee did not go after nixon re the invasion of cambodia. i remember being shocked over that, it seemed so clear cut and obvious. was that also perhaps thought to be too tough a pill for the mainstream to swallow? too despicable to air publicly?
hypothetically, IF we could get the real culprits for doing the wtc, but not the pentagon, would that be acceptable to you? (a million to one shot in any event.) for the feds way back when (at least according to an “untouchables” episode, i think it was), it was acceptable to go after/get al capone on tax evasion charges and “let go” a host of other more ghastly crimes he had allegedly committed–just as long as he was put behind bars.
thanks for the kind words and understood about the the marquis/ranke cit situation.

This is simple, I wrote it so that you might see that it is not that hard, nor arcane:

In Newton’s Laws of Mechanics – the Three Laws of Motion are necessarily sequential. The first two laws set the ‘frame’ concerning the meeting of two objects; whether both are in movement or one is in movement and the other at rest.

Once this frame is set, the third law of equal-and-opposite — action-and-reaction come into play.

This is at the core of my dispute with Fetzer, who wants to dismiss the Frame that the first two laws describe. So he doesn’t mention the first two laws as though they are irrelevant – whereas they are in fact, essential.

And this is related to his insistence that, all that matters in the physics of the crashes into the towers is the mass differential between the plane and the tower. Again he dismisses the Frame set by the first two laws. And by doing so misframes the entire matter of the necessary elements that describe momentum.

There are three; mass, speed, and specific direction {vector}.

An object at rest is in an inert state. It has only one of the necessary elements of momentum, that is mass.

And mass is specified as to it’s properties. Whether it is a single solid object or a collection of individual parts bound together as a whole.
In the case of the plane and building both objects are made of individual parts – obviously neither is a single solid object.

These two objects now being defined as per mass, and specific characteristics of construction, leads to the consideration of the physics when they meet: Crash Physics. And this is where the complexity begins.

Grow up! You’re the one who came in guns blazing at Jim Fetzer and has an inflated sense of his own importance. I wonder if Craig would set up a special blog for people to debate specific issues and monitor the debate so we can stop these inane ping pong matches that solve nothing.

You really ought to climb down from your high horse before you hurt yourself.

I don’t disagree with you, as I have stated; I just object to the tedious pissing matches that you seem fond of starting. I don’t need to take instruction from you. I would like this thread to discuss issues with the aim of resolving areas of difference.

I have not read the Protocols and am not prepared to comment on them since they have no relation to the events of Sept. 11. I do argue that Israel itself was the driving force behind the events inasmuch as Israel had thoroughly colonized the U.S, by this time. Is is not possible to speak of the U.S. as a national entity distinct from Israel; it is a de facto overseas possession, and the president is Israel’s governor on the Potomac. Given this and the fact that Israelis knew where and when the attack was to take place, the case for Israeli planning and execution is inescapable.

And, of course, there is ample access to abundant evidence on-line in the form of the book by Christopher Bollyn, articles by Alan Sabrosky, web sites like Rediscover911.com and the compendium of evidence in “Israel did 9/11 – all the proof in the world!”, which can be found here, among other places: http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367

But of course Israel cannot have done it on its own. The stand-down of the US Air Force on 9/11 and the alleged assault on the Pentagon could not have taken place without the approval of the Secretary of Defense and others at the highest levels of the American government, which offers proof that 9/11 properly qualifies as a national security event.

Quite right, Jim. Israel’s useful idiots and acolytes do the dirty work. This is also why Israel is anxious for the U.S. to attack Iran; Israel can’t be seen to be getting its own hands dirty. I’d love to know who pushed the button to set off the nukes at the bottom of the towers.My gut tells me it was an Israeli,

“I have not read the Protocols and am not prepared to comment on them since they have no relation to the events of Sept. 11.”

You are grossly mistaken, the Protocols have EVERYTHING to do with the events of 9/11. They have everything to do with the entire present paradigm, as it has all been contrived by the agenda found within those pages.

Israel is nothing but a garrison state in the Middle East for the Money Changers and their empire of the New World Order. Yes the Mossad are the “action figures” for the ‘chessgame’ but no less than any of the other western Intelligence agencies.

Zionist occupied Amerika, does not mean Israeli occupied Amerika, it means Zionist in the larger context.

You would do well to make a broader study of history.
……….

As far as your having proven your point – yes you have, you just don’t recognize what your own impetus is, and how you have subconsciously revealed yourself.

Craig, time to send Willy Wanka to his room and suspend his posting privileges. This is precisely the sort of off-topic abuse and misdirection I spoke of.WW adds little of any useful comment and is more interested in picking fights. I will do as many others have done and simply ignore his petulant provocations. This forum is supposed to be about Sept. 11, not WW’s febrile imagination.

Craig, can a poster continue to make inane, off-topic, needling cracks and claim to be a member in good standing on this thread? The “Protocols” have nothing to do with Sept. 11. On another site I posted a column of mine and some saboteur turned it into a referendum on the Holocaust®. Let’s not let this happen here regarding the “Protocols.”

I used those five words deliberately. Too often pompous saboteurs like WW latch onto a wild tangent and expect everyone to follow. We do look ridiculous if we allow a thread about Sept. 11 to degenerate into a harangue about the “Protocols”. Surely, you can see that. Besides, the entire subject is irrelevant to the specific events of the day in question. It is also inappropriate for WW to insult my research when a) he hasn’t read it; and b) is too besotted by his own self-importance to respect it. I’m sorry this farce has gone on as long as it has, and I hope you agree with me that unless WW is brought to heal this thread will lose focus the way the first one did.

You repeat the same old script verbatim, it is a mantra…you should fondle beads while you chant it. This mindset can only take place in a mythical make-believe paradigm. Oh yes, a charge that you will dismiss with a hand-wave, uttering another trite piece of dialog, that “it has been proven” – but YOU haven’t proven. Because it cannot be proven by rational argument, that is why the argument is forbidden.

Never discussed is the ‘content’. It is never analyzed in the context of the manuscript, but rather a “comparison” that is contextualized in the narrow aspect of how one sentence or section is similar to another. And not focusing on what the manuscript actually says. Every ‘debunking’ I have ever read fits the same template, and that is to distract from what the document says, by playing puzzle with the words and sentences. Why? It is because of that which is revealed in a reading of the document in it’s stated context.”~HybridRogue

As Wm F Pepper reminds us in the recent message to the 9/11 community, there is the issue of sociopolitical naivete both general and in the movement.

One cannot get a true grasp on the architecture of modern political power without the knowledge of the agenda formulated in the Protocols. They are a blueprint for where we are now…and unless the authors could see into the future, then they are the ones who put the plan into action; because the only way to tell the future accurately is to engineer it. OR read the engineering blueprints.

You said you were putting me on ‘ignore’ Felton, that would be for the best, as it seems your policy to ignore information you know nothing about, and to then criticize it from a position of ignorance.

Astute readers will pick up on both the multiplying and nullifying harmonics of themes brought up for discussion here.

A subject like the Protocols of Zion is a 9/11 rabbit-hole worthy of exploration.

You shouldn’t even be here making comments up or down if you admit that you know nothing about them. The sorry fact of the matter is, you would have been more effective in shutting down detours into the Protocols with less or even zero commentary, ala Jesus’s advice “turn the other cheek” for the web: “do not feed the trolls.” You could have let Mr. Rogue drop his cryptic references and have his one say; instead, you engage and it becomes many says but not on theme: a flame-war?!! Come on!

“Semaphore for 9/11 Truth” is a phrase I coined from the antics of others in dissuading and disabusing lurker-readers from exploring certain 9/11 themes. The more they gyrated their arms with the semaphore flags in their hands to wave-off approaching fliers, the more the under-current of their frantic signal becomes: “wave-on, land on this theme and explore independently. There is something to see here, folks! Do not be moving along.”

Mr. McKee could serve his readership well were he to pen an article under which the Protocols of Zion would be at home in a discussion relating to 9/11.

P.S. I won’t be discussing the Protocols further. Not my hobby-horse, but I vouch for its applicability. Mr. Rogue is correct when he writes:

One cannot get a true grasp on the architecture of modern political power without the knowledge of the agenda formulated in the Protocols. They are a blueprint for where we are now…and unless the authors could see into the future, then they are the ones who put the plan into action; because the only way to tell the future accurately is to engineer it. OR read the engineering blueprints.

Señor: I respectfully disagree. The Protocol angle is pure speculation. There is no way to prove cause-and-effect. I only write what I can prove, and the Protocols do not admit of proof. It is as silly as holding the Bible up as a historical document to make a given event look like the handiwork of God. That was tried in the case of the great Lisbon earthquake, when the Catholic Church said is was retribution sinfulness. Voltaire made mincemeat out of that argument in Candide.

If WW wants to say there are interesting coincidences, fine, but he makes the strong argument for a cause and effect, and this he is not entitled to do. It is irresponsible. I will not pollute my research with anachronistic speculation, especially since it is not necessary to understand Israeli involvement.

The simple and glaringly obvious fact is that in your not having read the Protocols, you are the one speaking through the seat of your trousers.

There is absolutely no speculation involved in this matter, it is a matter of sequential historical facts.

Your central problem is in having been indoctrinated into corrupt academia, and your belief of Lollipop History. You’re just another widgitbot for the system, subconsciously running a modified limited hangout.

Since WW has not read my book or evinced any understanding of my arguments I would say that he is no position to lecture me or spew tendentious nonsense about “corrupt academia.” He is clearly using the Protocols as a brickbat to take shots at me without regard to my arguments, and Craig is seriously remiss in not rebuking him for his misconduct. Already, I have had one reader of “Truth and Shadows” write to me lamenting Craig’s “willingness to tolerate a combative sociopath in his midst.”

Greg, I seriously wouldn’t go down this road. I have no patience for people telling how remiss I am for allowing one person or another to comment. I get this from all sides at one time or another. If you have a magic formula for moderation, pass it on. I know for sure that if I were a lot more strict I’d get as much or more heat for being dictatorial. My suggestion is that you make the points you wish to make and not let yourself be so easily knocked off course. If you do that then anyone who repeatedly tries to bait you will be seen as the guilty party.

The 9/11 Truth movement has to come to grips with the grim reality that not all of the truth about 9/11 is easy to accept. The Vancouver Hearings have shown–beyond reasonable doubt, where there are no reasonable alternatives–that (1) no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon (2) that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower, (3) that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, (4) that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower; (5) that nanothermite may have been used at the WTC but cannot have been the principal cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers and that mini-nukes or even DEWs are more likely, and (6) that Israel was complicit in 9/11.

The reasons for suppressing what we know about these things appear to be political, not scientific. The suggestion the 9/11 Truth movement is going to be ridiculed for discovering truths about 9/11 is simply absurd. If the 9/11 Truth movement does not stand for TRUTH, then it ought to disband. We all have to overcome our personal preferences as more and more evidence becomes available. When we make mistakes, as with nanothermite, then we should admit it. The bottom line is that If we are unwilling to defend truths about 9/11, we should disband as a truth movement and admit that we are really only 9/11 PR hacks.

We are underestimating the American people. The discovery that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that the Department of Defense has lied to the American people about it is sensational news. That Flight 93 was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after its alleged crash in Shanksville is sensational news. That Flight 175 was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it was reported to have hit the South Tower is sensational news. Pilots has done brilliant work, which is substantiated by detailed studies of the alleged “crash sites”. The American people are entitled to know the truth about our own history. We should tell them.

It’s not that I don’t want to wade through arguments, but they are presented so badly, so venomously and so repetitiously. So much petty bickering takes place that the larger picture of educating the public about Sept. 11 gets lost.

Which brings us back to what Craig posted above on how the “movement” can move forward and concentrate on the real enemy.

How can we educate the public and move forward under one banner when all genuine truthseekers are so compartmentalized with a siege mentality?

Okay, diversity is the essence off any group of protesters and debate between groups is the fuel that keeps us challenging not only others, but [b]ourselves[/b].

The recent “consensus” approach could only have worked if there was [b]moderated[/b] debate set within parameters that put the nitty gritty of alleged controversial issues under the spotlight. No insults. No wordsmithery. Just debating what we can reasonably prove to be the facts. And ruling on what we can reasonably prove to be false.

Even setting out what is deemed as a valid evidence was overlooked. And the lack of response to that question here on this blog, which could have opened an interesting avenue of debate, confuses me.

The reason I asked was because on one forum, Pilotsfor911Truth, I was debating with somebody who claimed that WTC7 fell because of diesel fires and “superheating” of trusses on the lower floors. I searched out every single image that I could find and this guy’s claims were rubbished. There were no lower floor fires.

His response to over 200 images (of Buildings 5, 6 and 7) from different angles and different timeframes was that the images don’t prove anything because he doesn’t “trust” what the images show. A guy pushing the OCT(under the “truther” cloak), yet allegedly doesn’t trust the source of the same OCT authors.

Onebornfree used the exact same argument, that the images released are all “fake” and that we can’t trust what we see (the CD of Building 7).

Both supposedly at opposite ends of the spectrum of “9/11 truth” using the same argument!

In my opinion, until this is done, these debates will always fall into the same self destructive traps.

@Craig

I think it would be interesting to select a [b]specific[/b] random claim by [b]any[/b] group or individual and debate that single issue. Not a general, wide ranging claim or theory but individual issues. Issues that cross section into some, most or all viewpoints.

Interesting suggestion. Do you mean pick one specific point and allow only comments on that on particular thread?

Also, you wrote: “Even setting out what is deemed as a valid evidence was overlooked. And the lack of response to that question here on this blog, which could have opened an interesting avenue of debate, confuses me.”

Forgive me for needing a reminder: could you mention again the question that lacked a response?

Sorry Craig, but I think the entire premise of you article is wrongheaded. It’s a mistake for you [or anyone else] to think in terms of what “we” “all” “need” “to do” to “further” “the movement”.

Nobody here can speak for anyone other than themselves, including yourself. “Movement- schmoovement!” is what I say.

Movements always fail simply because its members are in complete denial of fundamental laws of human action that can never be changed: specifically , each and every one of us is a unique individual with unique values and unique life experiences, and unique world views: http://mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec4.asp .

It’s the same fundamental reason[s] that all politics and all governments ultimately must fail.

Therefor, no two 9/11 investigators can possibly ever have the exact same view about what happened/did not happen on 9/11.

This fact is lightly touched on in Jim Fetzer’s July 29, 2012 at 11:50 pm comment:

“In general, convergence of opinion between different investigators is only expected when they are (a) considering the same alternative hypotheses (b) based upon the same body of evidence and (c) employing the same rules of reasoning ” ….

…However , I would say that even when those guidelines are followed, final differences of opinion will still necessarily emerge, given the true , undeniable nature of human action [we are all totally unique individuals].

This means that ultimately the only way a 9/11 “truth movement” can have any hope of an effect is for its members to deliberately, consciously, entirely disregard their necessarily different opinions/theories, “for the greater good” [or whichever collectivist fantasy bromide one wishes to insert here] , and agree on perhaps only one easy to agree on “fact” that most could agree to.

I submit that that agreed on fact could be: “9/11 was an inside job”. Others might suggest a different “easy” fact that most could agree to.

As I have no faith in “movements” [political or otherwise] for reasons outlined in the link provided, even though I would agree with a 9/11 “truth movement” whose only agreed on point was that 9/11 was an inside job, I still would not identify with it/support it beyond that.

As far as I can see, each of us must necessarily make their own mind up about the “truth” of 9/11 and what it means for _ourselves_ personally, and for our own lives as an individual, and take full responsibility for what we have each freely chosen to believe and how we then choose to act in the real world, based on those specific , freely chosen 9/11 beliefs.

In other words, based on your own unique conclusions of what 9/11 truth actually is, forget “movements”- how does that “truth” impact your own life -what are you going to do about it as an _individual_?

For example, a person who believes that practically all of the broadcast network and “amateur” “live” footage is fake, and that most, if not all, of the 3000 alleged victims were also faked, those unique , freely chosen, individual conclusions about how that specific 9/11 truth knowledge impacts their own life, and what they should do about it, is necessarily going to be entirely different from someone who still believes that the network coverage was/is trustworthy, or that political action of some kind is “the best way to go”, or that the media will “wake up”.

As far as your veiled “can’t we all get along” type complaint about the ongoing infighting amongst 9/11 “truthers” everywhere, I would suggest that “big picture”, there is nothing you can really do about it beyond setting a good example in your own “backyard” [i.e “leading by example” in this blog] , and that the only way for you to do that would be for a more active role for yourself, or someone you hire, as a moderator whose job is to deliberately create an environment for polite, open debate that does not exclude/favor any one particular point of view. Good luck with that 🙂 [Not an easy task, I know.]

Perhaps ww and I agree about “consensus”: interpreted as unanimous agreement, it degenerates, necessarily, to the lowest common denominator, since as soon as a difference in opinion emerges–regardless of the quality of the evidence or of the reasoning involved–unless the least competent in the group agrees, it cannot be a matter of consensus. There are many examples in these threads, where the less informed and less adept at reasoning nevertheless seriously contest and lambast those who are more informed and more competent. Illustrations abound here.

“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone believed by the masses.” – Plato

This is prescient and oh so appropriate to the present issue of this article by Mr. McKee.

Fetzer claims that: “We are underestimating the American people.”

No we aren’t. We are dealing with the problems of mass delusion that have effected the human race for thousands of years.

Walter Lippmann, who together with Bernays developed the budding psychological regime of Public Relations, begins his book PUBLIC OPINION, with a discussion of Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ – which Plato sums up with the observation quoted above.

Advertisers rely on this famous assertion: “No one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the common man.”

It is grasping this that the Truth Movement must come to grips with.

As I said in an earlier comment here; the American people have for the most part completely forgotten the 9/11 event, until reminded by the MSM as the anniversaries roll around. The majority, some 80 to 90 percent simply don’t give a damn, it’s “ancient history” to them.

They don’t give a damn about anything but their own petty existence, being fed and entertained, and trifling gossip is what they think about.

One might consider mine a ‘cynical’ point of view, however, it is simply realistic and supported by the entire history of the human race.

This came to me today from a member of the Itasca 9/11 Truth and Justice Committee:

WILLIAM PEPPER is an eminent attorney. He has represented Sirhan Sirhan and other high-profile political accusees and proved their innocence and, resultingly, the conspiracy to frame them. He was (is) the lead attorney for NYC-CAN. He authored this statement, providing a focus and recommendation for the 911 Truth movement, on request. Your comments will be most welcome and helpful as we search for a meaningful direction. -jh

A SIDELINE’S VIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE 911 TRUTH MOVEMENT

As one who has supported and followed the 911 Truth Movement, largely from the sidelines I have been asked to submit some observations about the current status and potential future direction of the effort.

As a result of my detachment from the ongoing activities, thus being unaware of events in various areas of the country, I am not at all clear that my views may be as relevant as those of others who have been more closely involved.

At the outset, allow me to express my respect and admiration for the many individuals –architects, engineers, lawyers, theologians, educators, researchers, documentarians and other professionals, along with victims’ family members, former military officials and ordinary citizens who have kept the search for the truth alive for over a decade. Their tenacious commitment is precisely what is required of citizens of a Republic when it faces governmental obstruction manifested in the blatant refusal to provide answers to questions and issues ignored by the official investigation. One of the difficulties that this, and any other such Movement faces is the fact that its member/activists have often greatly differing degrees of political awareness. This is bound to affect policy and practice. The process of radicalization of committed activists is a gradual one and results in some individuals seeing the events of 911 as a single issue rather than being a part of an ongoing multi faceted effort to exercise control over the lives of the citizens and the fruits of the earth’s natural resources earmarked for the profitable use by the few. In this respect, an alliance with the Occupy Movement is long overdue. I know that sections of that Movement (which itself is suffering from fragmentation and loss of direction, as well as infiltration and subversion – the latter may also be considered by the 911 Movement) have had an ongoing interest in the events of 911.

My sense also is that the Movement could benefit from a more unified approach and that the many activities which are going on need a coordinated public relations presence. Mainstream media will continue to ignore these efforts and fragmentation aids and abets public ignorance. When one becomes aware that the left/liberal or more progressive media also has been co-opted and that some of the more illustrious commentators have become gatekeepers, the problem is clearly compounded. This reality needs to be addressed by some in the Movement who have media experience.

At the end of the day, I believe that the forces of power are simply waiting out the 911 Truth Movement, and that all of the books, articles and documentaries will become part of the dust heap of history. That would be a tragic end of this significant effort.

I have long believed that the memorialization of all of the good work and factual revelations would only be historically perpetuated and possibly result in justice for the families of victims through the commencement of a well planned legal action brought in a viable Federal District Court Jurisdiction. The cost would be enormous; the results, probably worth every penny. With respect to all those who have previously tried to go this route, the efforts have been flawed, in one way or another. The experience is a valuable teacher. I believe that critical witnesses are still available and that the evidence has continued to be developed.

I hope that these thoughts, or some of them, may be of use to the Movement and the very special individuals who have kept it alive. I am humbled by their struggle.

This commentary from W.F. Pepper is well worth some deep consideration. I have held him in deep respect for a long time. His book, ORDERS TO KILL on the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr is brilliant and essential reading to get a grasp on the true nature of the forces aligned against truth and justice.

It also highlights the Achilles Heel of the elites, and their fear and loathing with insights to the real terror they felt at the occupation of DC at the height of the Vietnam protests.

But the elites were wise enough to sacrifice their precious war in Nam to regroup and subvert the protest from within, by this token. And everyone went home, under the impression they had defeated the beast, when it was just a clever feint.

The Public Relations Regime knows and puts to practice deep knowledge of the human psyche, and the technological dictatorship has enchanted the vast majority of humanity with it’s electronic necromancy. It is deeper than political naivete, it is unconsciousness. The paradigm of full spectrum dominance is come to fruition in this panoptic maximum security state.

We have a techno-psychological problem to solve that goes far beyond simply the political – and to break these chains will take a complete paradigm shift, and the destruction of the current system in toto.

I hope we all come to recognize how close this race with the power elite is. The clock is ticking.

re: “to break these chains will take a complete paradigm shift, and the destruction of the current system in toto.” agreed, but how can that be accomplished? can you expand on this (if not too far afield for this thread–craig?).

re: “I hope we all come to recognize how close this race with the power elite is.” i’d like to read more on this as well (again, if not too far afield for this thread–craig?).

It will destroy itself, by destroying the host – humankind and the planet itself.

As to what the answer is to avoiding such a fate…

I guess Orwell, who was prescient enough to see this developing so long ago, also had advice as to how to deal with it: Remain Sane. Hold on to your sanity and humanity.

Everyone seems to come away from 1984 with the impression that Winston Smith had been defeated. What they don’t seem to grasp is the double intendre’ when Orwell said that Winston now “loved Big Brother” – forgetting that “Love is Hate” in his world. Ja?

No Winston still despised Big Brother, he had not been totally broken.

This will not answer the question of how to defeat Big Brother and avoid the fate of a barren lifeless Earth…I know.

But the humans that are able to remain sane while life does go on, are still the winners, for they are never broken. Be one of those.

……….

When people ask me what would be the best resource for gaining an understanding of what is really going on, I always recommend Douglas Reed’s:
THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION.

It is available for free as a PDF on the web, just browse the title and authors name, it is easy to find.

If you aren’t already familiar with the works of Antony Sutton, it is one of the most complete proofs that everything is contrived – all the wars, everything have been staged theatrical acts…of course with humanity as the players and ones to suffer.

WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER… is a good one, but his technical works that led to his discovery that the Cold War was a hoax is what led him to, SKULL AND BONES, his grand finale, an indispensable read.

BTW, Craig has my email, and I now authorize him to pass it on to you if you wish.

as i understand it, oliver stone was under consideration to direct. during contract negotiations, stone wanted the power to say how the movie ended. suffice it to say, he would not be given that right, and the deal fell thru as a result.
i think stone did an over-the-top subperb job with JFK. after that, there was a cocaine bust or something that went down, and now, well…oliver stone can no longer be the oliver stone he once was. i’ve not seen his WTC, and from what i’ve heard about it, i don’t want to.

very nice to read bill pepper’s words here, and see those with opposing viewpoints (e.g., jim and ww) agree about him.

bill and i are friends. we worked on the nyccan memo of law together, for which see http://nyccan.org/NYC_CAN_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW.pdf i wish judge lehner had read it. i thought we made a pretty good case. we gave judge lehner enough to hang is hat on and find for us if he wanted to. he didn’t.

bill and i disgree re the 9/11 federal court case he wishes to bring and has long advocated. bill has a faith in the judicial system that i do not share. to me, the fact that bill proved to a jury that government agencies were involved in the assassination of MLK (see http://williampepper.com/index.html), and that the mainstream media continued to ignore (at best) the implications of this–thereby maintaining the status quo–speaks volumes, and is a powerful indicator that the same thing would happen with his proposed 9/11 case, in my view.

Yes, the federal system is beyond corrupt. Fighting the system from within is futile.

As you noted before, Pepper has proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. was a hit by the criminal state. But the criminal state runs the Public Relations Regime…and thus, nothing is revealed on MSM, and the TVZombies remain enchanted, stupefied sheep.

Nothing more could be expected from a 9/11 suite – the whole system is a farce.

Not that its a discussion for this particular thread Jim, but one thing that has puzzled me ever since I first discovered your research, some of which you have mentioned in these threads, including the 100’s [ if not more] 9/11 government lies, plus government lies about the Kennedy assassinations, government lies about the MLK assassination etc., and your exposure of extreme government culpability in _all_ of those events [ as well as many others unlisted here], is your continued, unabashed, unapologetic support for the necessity of governments.

I particularly recall an online debate you had with the anarcho-libertarian Ace Baker on this subject on you radio show a while back.

Maybe a question for you to think about/ consider, [and perhaps for anyone else here who strongly believes in the necessity of governments- just please don’t answer here and disrupt the thread] might be:

given all you know about the government conspiracies that you have put so much time/effort into exposing, why would you so adamantly support the continued existence of the US government? [Seems like a major “disconnect” to me 🙂 ]

Well, if we all conducted ourselves toward our fellow humans in morally appropriate ways, government might not be necessary. But to regulate acceptable forms from unacceptable forms of behavior, we have to have an apparatus to implement laws that prohibit forms of grossly unacceptable interpersonal conduct (murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape), which are based upon the (physical) harm principle, where most forms of behavior that are merely improper (lying, promise-breaking, infidelity and the like) are controlled not by a formalized enforcement apparatus but by social condemnation and pressure from our peers. I have a chapter or two about the relationship between morality, legality, and propriety in RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2007), which you could probably obtain from amazon.com. If you want to discuss this in greater detail, I would be glad to hear from you at jfetzer@d.umn.edu. Best!

Governments have always been rackets scamming the populations, taxing their labor, and putting arbitrary restrictions on their lives.

I’d rather have taken my chances in a state of true anarchy than with this phony criminal cabal that refers to itself as “government”.

I guess it depends on ones own self confidence and a trust in ones own wits.

From Hammurabi until this very day we have been hoodwinked by ‘The Law’, which is written for the commoners, and is actually fiat and caprice in the hands of the Lawgivers and the Money Changers who finance them.

Like I said, it seems like a major disconnect, or contradiction to me. If you want governments in the first place, the very things [i.e vast conspiracies within it] that you have continually complained about and tried to expose are inevitable – it is the very nature of the beast itself.

I would say that anyone who believes that they can have governments _without_ corruption/conspiracies etc. on a vast scale is a little “out of touch with reality” , to say the least.

You know…I’ve noticed that quite a few posters have come on to this blog lately, and within a short while of being here, they start telling Craig how the site should be run…or ‘strongly suggesting’…as it were.

They whine and bitch about all sorts of trifling matters as far as I see it. Many seem to think their particular definition of what is and is not ON TOPIC has some sort of universal aspect to it.

I have always taken it as a given that Craig is certainly capable of discerning such things for himself, and that if he has posted a comment, he feels it within the bounds of discussion.

When a goodly portion of the commentary of these types become calls for disciplining, or banning another commentator, and this keeps getting drummed and whistled like a military cadence, I begin to suspect despotic tendencies are at hand. And as such all of the neurotic behaviors of these personality types begin to bloom as they may be confronted.

They wear such neurosis on their sleeves like monogrammed cuff-links – and when they go off in hysterics they simply glow in the dark.

Depending on my mood I can find these sorts of antics, entertaining, humorous, or sad.

But all in all I am astounded with Craig’s patience with this baloney. It’s like he is has to run a nursery as well as a blog.

“While many will dismiss the idea of a Zionist-Masonic alliance as laughable, delusional or the all-time favorite, “conspiracy theory,” there is an undeniable link that exists between the Talmudic enclave built upon ethnically cleansed Palestinian land and the satanic secret society that has had a prominent, clandestine hand in world events for centuries.

One needs to look no further than the buildings and lodges donated to the Zionist entity by its founders, the international banking giants and originators, the Rothschild family, who are rumored to “own” 80% of historic Palestine. Literally, Freemasonry is written all over each massive structure. The reason why this connection needs to be discussed is painfully significant. The Zionist regime is exceedingly precise in carrying out its intelligence operations of death and destruction on anniversaries, on Jewish holidays or on days with deeper, “spiritual” meaning in the Kabbalist-Masonic context of “sacred geometry.”

Examples: Mossad’s false flag attack on September 11th, 2001; in Kabbalistic teaching, the numbers (9/11) represent the day in which the religion of the world becomes one of which that requires its followers to disbelieve in ‘God’ on earth and believe that all life on earth should be annihilated. Leading 9/11 researcher, journalist, writer, professor and scholar Kevin Barrett described the September 11th attacks as “a mass human sacrifice designed to ritually inaugurate a New World Order of global government by Satanists and atheists.”

It is also 11 years to the day that George Bush’s father called for such a ‘New World Order.’ Next, one of Mossad’s false flag attacks in Mumbai and the infamous train bombings in Madrid; the events of both attacks were overwrought with Kabbalistic numerology, the destructive number 11 in particular. Also, the criminal, genocidal, Zionist invasions of Iraq and Libya; both nations were invaded on the twisted Jewish revenge holiday of Purim, in which the blood of the Amalekites (in this case, Arabs) must be spilled for the ‘Jewish people’ to rejoice in victory.”~Jonathan Azaziah
. . . . . . . . . . .

Note this: “…secret society that has had a prominent, clandestine hand in world events for centuries.”

These issues, and there connection to 9/11 Is not something I have pulled out of my own hat. There are plenty of deep and serious aspects that researchers into 9/11 need to be aware of to put it all into context.

Unsubstantiable, superstitious twaddle. Imputed cause-and-effect based on no verifiable evidence is of no use to anyone who respects serious analysis. It is not necessary to invoke the Rothchilds or any “City-of-London” claptrap to understand Israel’s role on Sept. 11. Just because WW buys into it, does not mean that I or anyone else has to. In The Host and the Parasite I deduced a perfectly logical, rational basis for Israeli involvement, and I did so without benefit of a crystal ball or chicken entrails.

People besotted with ‘lust for power’ will use any means at their disposal to achieve their ambitions. Even pretending to be what they’re not, would be no problem at all for these ‘entities’, as long as “their end justify the means”, are generally accepted by the deeply (at times ‘willfully’) ignorant “mainstream”.

What these so-called ‘human beings’ are doing today, is no different to what other so-called ‘humans’ at times did to ‘their’ populations, all through human history.

Today they rely completely on the ignorance of the ordinary “voter”. (Read: Sheeps and opportunists)!

In the past, they relied completely on the ignorance of the ordinary “peasant” and
the ordinary “citizen”. (Read: Sheeps and opportunists)!

So far nothing has changed.

It is my sincere hope that at least to some extent, this blog and by far the most of the participants here, one day will have contributed their bit to end, once and for all times, this madness we see unfolding all around us on a daily basis.

Really Felton, you are one dense brick. You have no idea of what you speak.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything here. But it is a good idea to know a subject before disputing it; there is certainly no logical or rational basis for arguing from a position of total ignorance.

But further is the notable and obvious fact that you pretend to a position of nonaggression here, and by this very latest post; August 2, 2012 at 3:12 am, prove such assertions to be disingenuous posturing…put bluntly, a load of horseshit.

This is the fourth day of you sniping at practically every comment I make. And you should know, I really don’t care. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest for someone to come along and display their own inadequacies and covert temperament by yapping at my heels like a frantic chihuahua.

Greg. The level of debate I hope to engender is elusive. It is not helpful to try to push me into some undefined action that you imagine will help the discourse. If you have a specific blueprint for how comments should be treated, then I’m open to hearing it. I think Señor El Once has a point when he says that there are times when turning the other cheek is the best course of action. There are times when I wish others, including WW, would follow this suggestion. Not EVERY comment, snarky or otherwise, requires a response (directed at everyone). While I’m not sure that the initial mention of the PROTOCOLS was on topic, the resulting disagreement relates directly to how certain discussions may be seen as irresponsible by some.

It has occurred to me, after enduring hybridrogue1’s repeated assaults on me that there may be a perverse logic to them. His uncalled-for attacks upon my character and scholarship, his introduction of the Protocols, and the sheer frequency of his posts tells me that he is a Zionist disinformant, a hasbarat.

My research, which can stand up to anything HB1 can throw at it, shows that Israel played a major, if not a leading, role in the 9/11 attack, and that this role can be understood in the context of Israel’s political self-interest. I use Occam’s Razor prevent precisely this sort of empty, unsubstantiable speculation from entering my writing. Even Señor el Once concedes that there is no proof of connection between the Protocols and 9/11. So, HB1 repeatedly slimes me for not endorsing empty, unsustantiable speculation. I’m the one who’s a hypocrite?

I don’t need the Protocols to explain Israel’s role, and I refuse to be dragged into this time-wasting demi monde. The only purpose that this could possibly serve is to insulate Mossad from scrutiny and sabotage informed analysis of Israel’s role. Hence, my conclusion is that HB1 is a provocateur, and likely a sockpuppet.

If HB1 has anything useful to say, let him make his case. Let him make the connection, but I will not endure this abuse. I don’t answer to him or anyone else, and my research stand on its own.

Unless HB1 is prepared to stop these petty attacks and infantile, disparaging insults, I must strongly urge that he be punted. I’m not the only one who thinks so.

My point in having knowledge of the agenda is valuable – indeed essential knowledge, as to the history that has so clearly taken place. It and puts many things in their true context, especially as 9/11 was a booster shot to this ongoing agenda.

WW, I really have no problem with looking at the evolution of agendas and the historical events that contributed to them. So I wasn’t really finding fault with the subject being mentioned. As long as items like these aren’t used as “shots” against another contributor to the thread…(not accusing).

There is no way to prove cause-and-effect. I only write what I can prove, and the Protocols do not admit of proof. … [Mr. Rogue] makes the strong argument for a cause and effect [between the Protocols and 9/11], and this he is not entitled to do. It is irresponsible. I will not pollute my research with anachronistic speculation, especially since it is not necessary to understand Israeli involvement.

Woa, woa, woa! This forum isn’t Mr. Felton’s research, so nothing has been polluted. I don’t know where he — as a new-comer to this forum albeit with 9/11 Vancoever Hearing level exposure — can be dictating what anyone else is entitled to do, labeling it irresponsible, and recommending suspending posting privileges. [Flag is called on the play!]

He has made every single posting on the tangent Protocols theme from an admitted position of ignorance: he not having read them and not being prepared to write on them. How “irresponsible” is that?

The problem with 9/11 is that (by design) the 9/11 Truthers get bogged down in details (trees) and lose sight of the forest [that is being encroached on, clear cut, and poisoned.]

9/11 does not make a lot of sense until you step back and view history in larger chunks than Presidential Administrations. You have to view and span decades, which in turn imposes the necessity of looking at half-centuries sometimes for context as well. The decade since 9/11 has actually proven the agenda (blue print from PNAC) that required a 9/11 for instigation and fulfillment. And the agenda was in the works from before George Herbert Walker Bush was President (1988), was a conniving Vice-President in the Reagan years, was heading the CIA in 1976, and was in Texas on November 22, 1963.

There is truth to the statement regarding cause-and-effect lacking from detailed line items in the Protocols to specific events or anomalies on 9/11. When a wider view is taken that considers the passifying (e.g., media), enslaving (e.g., credit, junk food), and perversion (e.g., porno, “torture is okay”, “USA! #1! USA! #1”) of the masses, then the Protocols isn’t so out of place in an intelligent discussion.

From nuclear weapons to multiple forms of Weapons of Mass Destruction to faux Cold Wars to enemy combatants, etc., none of it makes much sense until a blue print is provided that takes a long-term view.

If you had been paying attention, WW is invoking the Protocols to claim my research is faulty. It isn’t. Since he hasn’t read my book, he is in no position to insult me. To get bogged down in the Protocols serves no one except WW.

As for being irresponsible, how about you? You admit there is not cause-and-effect between the Protocols and specific events or anomalies on 9/11, thereby supporting my position, but then yet you go on to speculate on a “wider view”! I won’t speculate on something I can’t prove. That is the sign of responsible scholarship. Furthermore, WW insults me repeatedly not having read my book or understanding my arguments in full. How irresponsbile is that??

I originally tried to change the subject from whether I was unfair to Fetzer or not, and put a halt to that squabble, by asking about Felton’s research. Unfortunately, my commentary upon it being a larger issue, and bringing up the Protocols led to the discovery of these issues – of an ongoing agenda through the centuries, etc; again this set Felton’s hair on fire.

That is the reason, I dropped down away from that tangle and posted my comment of August 2, 2012 at 12:00 am, disconnected to the thread of argumentation.
I thought a fresh go at the matter might settle things down.

I have no problem with Felton disagreeing with the Protocol’s relevance. The problem I have is in that he hasn’t read them. He can therefor; have no informed opinion on the matter. So his opinion, is logically negated.

I think if we are to have a rational discussion, then those who are not being rational should be called on it.

Felton could state his case against Israel in some manner, if he wants to keep posting on that issue. But this rattletrap from a base of ignorance of the topic he attempts is going to cause problems if he injects that into his case against Israel.
………….

I don’t know if you had time to read ‘Scragged Again’. There are more interesting passages there, that I could post for those who don’t have time to read the essay.
And I will if you have no objection.

Craig, this thread is not WW’s to hijack. It is not up to him to slag me for not having read the Protocols. It is up to him to prove their relevance, which he has not done. My arguments stand on their merits so I must insist that WW argue what I have written and that his pompous, puerile sniping cease.

>”If you had been paying attention, WW is invoking the Protocols to claim my research is faulty.”

This is not true. By your own admission you claim that Israel is responsible for 9/11.
That is obviously the crux of your work.

I think it is highly likely that you make a good and strong case against Israel, and back it up with real evidence. I know that evidence and have argued many times as to Israeli involvement in past debates on other blogs.

I do not claim your research is faulty – I claim that your paradigm, and general conceptualization is faulty. I claim that you haven’ the slightest clue as to the architecture of modern political power – that you have a stunted historical perspective. This has nothing to do with you research abilities whatsoever, but as to the general bias that you carry unwittingly as baggage into your thinking.

If you wish to discuss the validity of the Protocols, you damned well better read them.

>”My research, which can stand up to anything HB1 can throw at it, shows that Israel played a major, if not a leading, role in the 9/11 attack, and that this role can be understood in the context of Israel’s political self-interest.”~Felton – August 2, 2012 at 10:28 pm

And this is the very point you don’t get Felton. Israel has no independent self interest.

If you haven’t grasped by this late date that this is a global regime bound by “Interdependence” then you are simply not paying attention to anything but your own navel.

No one here is disputing Israeli involvement in 9/11, that is a straw man argument and another case of false argumentum on your part.

Your spurious accusations as per my being hasbara is as thin as your skin.

This page is a record with time/date stamps Felton. That you have, and continue to be such a blatant fool, knowing that this is all on record is astounding.

And this continued whining that I should be banned is over the top. If you can’t stand the heat get the hell out of the kitchen.

One more thing Felton, I don’t need to buy your book to know there was an Israeli connection, that was known within the first few days of the event. So your deal to have me agree to read it and then ‘maybe’ you would read the Protocols isn’t in the works – and if you wish to remain ignorant on the subject, more fool you.

More from; ‘Scragged Again’ – which shows a strange convergence of what happened at that fascist web site, and what has gone down here, on this thread:

“Claiming anything is ‘taboo’ information and beyond the realm of discussion shows the narrow width of your grasp of freedom of ideas and interpreting ideas.
It is purposely burying a manuscript – no matter how ‘fictional’ you may determine it to be, is what grows the canker on the whole subject.

The thesis of it’s supposed falsehood fails in that it is obviously predictive of the present political architecture of the world. Dismissing this out of hand is in no manner a valid search for truth, it is bare and obvious censorship.

How do you explain that the world is and is becoming more in the image proposed in the Protocols? If you have read it and will not admit that, and at the same time denying others any information that would be revealed in my critique is a plain deceit in itself.”~HybridRogue – addressing the editor of Scragged.com

The 9/11 truth movement and the 9/11 PR movement are two completely different movements. They also have opposing goals. One has the goal of exposing the truth about 9/11 while the other has the goal of spinning the truth into a palatable form for public consumption.

I agree with this idea totally. A modified limited hangout of truth is essentially a partial cover-up. “Half truths” have always been seen as a way to misrepresent things – it is a ‘psycho-marketing’ mainstay.

Jim Fetzer says: “But to regulate acceptable forms from unacceptable forms of behavior, we have to have an apparatus to implement laws that prohibit forms of grossly unacceptable interpersonal conduct (murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape), which are based upon the (physical) harm principle, where most forms of behavior that are merely improper (lying, promise-breaking, infidelity and the like) are controlled not by a formalized enforcement apparatus but by social condemnation and pressure from our peers. ”

Except that the “unacceptable interpersonal conduct (murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape),” and “lying, promise-breaking, infidelity and the like” is _exactly_ what is carried out by _all_ governments, everywhere, _all_ of the time!

That’s the exact nature of what they all do, day in, day out! You’ve got the fox guarding the henhouse, Jim.

Hate to say it Jim but you are living in total denial even as you rail against government conspiracies far and wide.

On the one hand you rail against government false-flag terror ops like 9/11 [i.e. effect] , on the other you unequivocally , if not rabidly support /defend the very entity responsible [i.e. cause] .

You appear to be in complete denial of the very nature of the beast you so rabidly defend, _despite_ the inevitable results you yourself have attempted to expose and document.

Thanks, TM. OBF seems to miss the difference between the rule of law and the rule of men. In some forms of government, dictatorships and monarchies, for example, one person can determine the fate of others regardless of due process, where none have rights that can protect them from abuse by authoritarian heads of state. In others, such a plutocracies and aristocracies, groups of the wealthy have inherent rights not enjoyed by other citizens. We need laws that apply to everyone, including government officials and employees, who otherwise would be entitled to get away with gross abused of other citizens. You need to think about societies in which there are no laws or enforcement mechanisms, such as states of anarchy, where, as Hobbs so eloquently put it, life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Just seeing the title written is enough to cause a nervous breakdown in many people. Neural tunnels explode in sequence, the eyes roll back in the head, the arm stretches out like a voodoo shaman as if a puppets arm on a string. And the low chant of “Antisemite” grows to a crescendo.

Whereas this thread has reached 170 plus comments, it would be unwise to begin posting the Protocols in sequence, and letting them show for themselves that they are the blueprint for the world now manifest, that they have specific instruction as to controlling the press and all knowledge. How this is to be put into practice etc.

This would best be done as a separate thread, dedicated to the subject. Therefore it is entirely up to Mr McKee to choose. And he will have to seriously consider my preamble above. This topic is TABOO…seriously considered as “Unspeakable”. Those who cross this line had best be prepared for the blowback that will certainly ensue. It is not as dangerous as it once was, but there are still those who will be seriously pissed off if this topic is breached.

please ‘imagine’ a participant in this thread bringing to the debate his conviction that it is the “Apocalypse” which is the direct cause for the evils we’re experiencing in to-days world, and wanted us now to debate this!

As both the ‘Apocalypse’ and ‘the Protocols’ were inspired from the same source, i would like you both, together with all readers here, to read the following answer to this question asked by some people in the past”, bearing in mind that the answer pertains equally to ‘the Protocols’:

“Why does ‘The Transcendental World’ denounce the Book of Revelation (the Apocalypse) as inspired by Ardor—Satan? Are there no truths of the Light, for example, in the letters to the various congregations?”

The Apocalypse has absolutely nothing to do with the truths of the Light. It was produced through Ardor’s inspiration and through his ether-recordings, read intuitively by the human author of the message who is not identical with John, the apostle. The Apocalypse also contains a number of reminiscences of “visions” of the Old Prophets. Neither do the letters to the various congregations originate with God or with the spirits of Light. They are a mixture of Ardor’s inspiration and pure fantasy by the author.

The entire book is a grotesque, misleading document of Darkness, a collection of fabrications, many rooted in the deepest paganism. And regardless of all human speculation and interpretation of its many prophecies, this will certainly not make them into eternal truths of the Light.

“Revelation” is the big, fanciful, mysterious fairy tale book of Christians, and not until the people who are spellbound by this book have progressed beyond their spiritual infancy will it loosen its hold on the human mind. Children “love” fairy tales, no matter how gory, how gruesome or senseless they may be. To most children the fairy-tale adventures are truths to which they return again and again. But when childhood is behind, these once admired and “beloved” stories are seen for what they are—fairy tales only, and nothing more.

The Apocalypse is thus a test of the maturity of the human spirit. Those who within themselves abhor and shun this work have passed from spiritual childhood. But those who really believe they can find in the Apocalypse beauty and divine truth are, spiritually, like young children, equally pleased by a glittering bracelet whether imitation or of the purest gold. There are also Christians, unfortunately, repelled inwardly by the Apocalypse, yet outwardly embracing it as authentic. Such people bear the heaviest of responsibility, as does Luther for his inclusion of the Apocalypse in the New Testament; for in his mind and in his thought he had no appreciation for this work.

While reading the so-called “Revelation of St. John the Divine”, Christians should think of the fairy tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, for this work is but an empty weave of figments of the mind, whose warp is the hideous, false and perverted imaginings of Darkness and whose weft is the fantasies of human thought.

I will suggest that instead of letting mr. rogue drag us and this blog unresistingly down to the world of utter Darkness, we should on the contrary try in unison to lift up mr. rogue into the world of Light, where sanity, Good Will, open-mindedness, tolerance and lucidity etc. etc. prevails.

A plague…a pandemic of curses follow thee like a pack of jackals on a moonless night ye hypocrites. Pass thee by me in silence rather than speak with the tongues of serpents…for the time is near and thou error is as the piles left by elephants, and the stench is worse.”~Magus Maverik

Tamborine man has posted something here written by someone who does not understand the difference between the Apocalypse and the myth of Armageddon.

Please take note that mr. rogue not only knows ‘everything’ there is to know (he was a ‘prodigy child’ – his parents told him so), but he also knows ‘everything’ there is to know about ‘high intelligences’ he think knows nothing about what they know everything about!

Obviously when it comes to “knowing”, the hapless mr. Rumsfeld has now found his ‘superior’ in a blog participator called mr. rogue.

Well, “the olympiads” are on at the moment, after all – so wonder if a ‘gold medal’ is in the offing to our dear friend here!

Craig McKee says: “The 9/11 Truth movement is fighting a war – but it’s only wounding itself.Self-appointed “credibility cops” have made it their mission to act as antibodies in the Truth movement’s immune system, seeking out and destroying harmful ideas, individuals, and alliances they think threaten the survival of the host. The idea is to rid the movement of any area of research that might contaminate it and invite public ridicule.

But is the cure worse than the disease?

The exaggerated need to control all aspects of the message is working against us. We have become so preoccupied with cleansing the movement of harmful thoughts that we spend an unhealthy amount of time attacking each other instead of the official story and the media cover-up…”

Craig, here is a related article about the “curative powers” of internet journalism, which I thing makes some interesting points/observations which tend to support the idea that both here, and elsewhere, the 9/11 “credibility cops” just don’t get it [unless of, of course they are paid “plants”], at least with regards to the internet vs. traditional journalism :

[excerpt] “……Here’s what is most interesting to me about all of this. This episode will undoubtedly be used to claim — yet again — that the Internet cannot be trusted, that it is prone to circulating myths and rumors, and that we need traditional journalistic institutions to verify facts and confirm the truth.”

“I think this proves exactly the opposite. The first known Internet mention anywhere of this well-crafted fake column appeared very late Saturday night. By early Sunday morning — less than 12 hours later — it was exposed as a hoax. That happened by virtue of all of the strengths which the Internet uniquely offers, and which traditional journalism precludes: collective analysis, using one’s readers (tens of thousands of people, if not more) to help with research and investigation, instant and mass collaboration with other journalists and experts, an open and transparent analytical and investigative process.”

“That’s why errors and frauds have a very short life-span on the Internet. The power to tap into collective knowledge and research is so much more potent than being confined to a single journalistic outlet. The ability to have one’s work take the form of a mass dialogue, rather than a stagnant monologue, is incredibly valuable. It is true that the Internet can be used to disseminate falsehoods quickly, but it just as quickly roots them out and exposes them in a way that the traditional model of journalism and its closed, insular, one-way form of communication could never do.”
…
“This collaborative model enabled by the Internet strengthens every aspect of journalism and, as today’s episode shows, obliterates errors quickly and definitively……”

I find the solution to both number one and number seven to be similar, in that discovering any Facts of an issue to be misframed, will eliminate that aspect of “uncertainty” that is attempted to be sown.

By the same token, there are Rational processes that one can apply to parse the ‘reasonableness’ of assertions and arguments.

Orin Hatch was fond of saying: “Reasonable people can disagree”. And although this has some truth to it. There is the issue of who used this term as a mantra in his debates in the Senate and Joint committees – Hatch, being one of the most disingenuous rhetorical gamesmen in a snakepit of like kind.

One can “Use Reason”, in the sense that a cad “uses” a woman for his craven desires. Or one can “Stand to Reason”, by making rational arguments that do not rely on rhetorical tricks and emotional manipulations.

From what I have seen, looking into Greenwald; even though he cut right through to the chase on the anthrax hoax and laid it at the government’s feet, he has been unwilling to consider 9/11 as an inside job.

He appears to see it as ‘blowback’ because of imperial aggression in the M.E. – rather a ‘leftist’ mainstay, like Chomsky and those of that ilk.

As we know, ‘blowback’ is often used as a limited modified hangout. It doesn’t necessarily mean those who accept it are ‘agents’ of the state, but rather that they are somewhat naive, and often too cautious…and there is the aspect of going along to get along when one has reached a certain ‘credibility level’ with one’s peers.

As incredible as it seems, there is this strange hesitance to apply logic because of such psychological barriers. A shame, for if Greenwald did come around, he would surely cut the official story to shreds with wit and elegance.

ww,
thanks for the research and report. that’s about all i could dig up about greenwald as well. maybe he’ll come around some day.

chomsky’s another story. 9/11 and jfk don’t matter!!! how insane is that? in my book, those statements make him the chief gatekeeper of the left. funny…the links i had to two youtube clips of chomsky saying that 9/11 and the jfk assassination don’t matter, no longer work. these were the first 90 seconds here
and the rest herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM (“who cares?” at around the four minute mark).

The other is longer and explores the inadequacies of his work on the nature of language and mind as well as his dismissals of conspiracy in the cases of JFK and 9/11. See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKKDmuqMOaA

I admired Vidal a great deal, and he was right about what has happened to the country and how it is controlled by the military. But even with so much truth being spoken in that interview, Vidal still seemed to believe that terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9/11. He was very concerned about the failure of the government to protect its citizens but didn’t seem to consider the possibility that the government was involved in the planning and execution of the “attacks.” Goodman is another figure of the left that stops short of imagining that a false flag operation could have taken place.

I suppose for Democracy Now that is really something. But from my point of view, I would say it is tepid at best. The most we get from this is “government negligence”. Which is the favored limited modified hangout for such things.

It’s close to eleven fricking years now, and that is all Amy can come up with?

I think all who are on track realize Amy is a gatekeeper. The gate is still shut.

Yes, I too admired Chomsky, have read scores of his books. I still think he has great relevance, and has been an effective critic of the empire…like Chalmers Johnson and others in that category; good as far as it goes.

I love Vidal as an historical author, and this is actually the first I heard of his passing. His book on Lincoln had some great insights, the Burr one as well. I forget the name of the one on Persia, but it was utterly fascinating…and REALLY long {grin}.

Tamborine man said: “you would have found that you’re saying the same as Jim did, except he was far more ‘diplomatic’ than you.”

Jim Fetzer says: August 2, 2012 at 12:29 pm

“Thanks, TM. OBF seems to miss the difference between the rule of law and the rule of men. In some forms of government, dictatorships and monarchies, for example, one person can determine the fate of others regardless of due process, where none have rights that can protect them from abuse by authoritarian heads of state. In others, such a plutocracies and aristocracies, groups of the wealthy have inherent rights not enjoyed by other citizens. We need laws that apply to everyone, including government officials and employees, who otherwise would be entitled to get away with gross abused of other citizens. You need to think about societies in which there are no laws or enforcement mechanisms, such as states of anarchy, where, as Hobbs so eloquently put it, life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Seeing as how you [Jim] appear to agree with TM’s comment to me, and as how TM has either missed or is avoiding my request for further clarification, I will attempt to answer the two of you in this response.

Frankly, I do not see how my own point of view in _any_ way resembles Mr Fetzer’s, as TM asserts.

That anyone could so grossly misinterpret, my original comments to Mr Fetzer is beyond my comprehension.

The simple fact of the matter is that Mr Fetzer is a _huge_ endorser of the state [i.e the very entity responsible for the 9/11 false flag] , he even quotes Hobbes, who wrote a book called “Leviathan” and who heavily promoted the “need” for a large centralized state in his most famous work.

I, on the other hand, am an “enemy of the state” . I do _not_ endorse any government, anywhere.

As far as I am concerned they are all nothing more than criminal scams, regardless of form taken. The smaller they all were, the better I’d like it. If they did not exist I’d like that even more.

All I have tried to do in this thread is point out the massive irony of a somewhat famous person who makes his living exposing the criminality of government but who apparently continues to fantasize that in the real world there is any actual working difference between ” the rule of law and the rule of men” , or that “We need laws that apply to everyone, including government officials and employees, who otherwise would be entitled to get away with gross abused of other citizens. “, when obviously, “we” already have those laws in place – so how’s that working out for you and the rest of us, Jim 🙂 ?

Jim Fetzer said: “…if we all conducted ourselves toward our fellow humans in morally appropriate ways, government might not be necessary.But to regulate acceptable forms from unacceptable forms of behavior, we have to have an apparatus to implement laws that prohibit forms of grossly unacceptable interpersonal conduct (murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape), ”

I’m sorry Jim, but as far as I am concerned, anyone who seriously believes that government can actually regulate personal morality,[i.e. “acceptable forms from unacceptable forms of behavior,”] when it is itself a totally amoral, corrupt, criminal organization [and has always been and always will be] , and who studiously ignores the _massive_ amounts of “in your face” evidence that on a day to day basis exposes its total inability to do that which you fantasize that it can/will do, is in one heck of a state of serious denial 🙂 .

You are doubtless correct to condemn governments for their self-interested behaviour but advocating a governmentless society is utopian nonsense. No matter what the society, a power structure will always move to take up what ever power vacuum exists. Remember Marx? He was of the opinion that the state would “wither away” once the workers’ paradise was established. How’s that going?

Ironically, those who condemn government venality and champion individual liberties in the name of an idealized image of the individual do the most to ensure that tyrannies have a long life.

There are many logical fallacies in your argument, OBF. The first is your implicit assumption that only governments are amoral, corrupt and criminal, but that the same cannot be said of individuals. Who do you think creates governments?

Second, you don’t allow for the possibility of a government to act in the public interest in any way shape or form. Such a maximalist position is untenable.

Third, you assume that in a given society the common people can or want to govern themselves. This is unsupported by any current data. Apathy and self-indulgence have contributed to a culture where people willingly abdicate control over their lives to representatives. The unwillingness to apply law fairly does not mean that all government is bad.

Fourth, without some rules regarding human behaviour, we would truly inhabit a Hobbesian world of all against all.

Fifth, a society such as you envision could only work on a small scale, like the Greek city-state. Do you seriously think Canada or the U.S. could be run as a stateless entity?!

Turtle Island is hardly typical of modern society, which is something you’d know if you read what I wrote. Also, citizen apathy is the typical state of Western democracy, especially in N. America. I never said it was the natural state. You clearly need to back up your sweeping generalizations with some sort of evidence.

> “Turtle Island is hardly typical of modern society, which is something you’d know if you read what I wrote. Also, citizen apathy is the typical state of Western democracy, especially in N. America.”~Felton

First of all, characterizing the Western states as “democracies” is clearly absurd. They are each and everyone despotic oligarchies in costume. It is a charade, and ludicrous vaudville.

As I said, the apathy of the typical enchanted widgetbot, TVZombie, Consumer, Vewing Audience, is due to the process of the enforced rituals of the technocratic state.

It is Western Society itself that is built on the psychosis of the European invaders.
As is said, “there can be no justice in a stolen land.”

As far as MY “sweeping generalizations”…a topic of this breadth can only be discussed via general philosophical terms.

I would not get hot again Felton, there is no cause to take counter debate as an “attack’ as you seem so apt to do. Remain calm, and make your case.

I do make my case calmly; perhaps you need to read more calmly. I case you hadn’t noticed, I was correcting OBF’s utopian embrace of anarchy as an improvement on our current forms of government. I pointed out that his bases for making his claims were unsupported by any evidence. You also make gross simplifications of complex questions. Apathy among voters has many causes, not the least of which are laziness and disinterest. I suggest you read Plato’s Republic to see his description of the decline of democracy.

As I pointed out, a governmentless society is essentially a power vacuum, and someone will rush to fill it with some sort of government. You are right to note the oligarchic nature of our “democracies” but so what? It is irrelevant to the idea that we can do away with government altogether, as OBF claims.

How do you do it ’rogue1? Is your ability to make a pig’s breakfast out of a simple statement a natural gift or did you study long and hard to achieve such a level of cognitive impairment? Please point to the place where I say I “prefer” Plato’s Republic.

Also perhaps you could also explain to us how one piece of writing could be “an exact analog” of another. I’ve read both the books you mentioned and can state without fear of contradiction that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Finally, Craig, please end this discussion now before this 9/11 thread becomes even more unravelled.

Greg, I’ll decide when it’s necessary to step in and end a discussion. I really don’t know what the problem is. This topic may not have much to do with the topic of the article, but at least it has been reasonably thoughtful and civil. You seem intent on picking a fight, or am I mistaken? I have already held back three of your comments because they offer nothing but insults. No one wants to read that. I made a point of asking people on this thread to be civil, and for the most part, people have complied.

I am not picking a fight. I don’t know how you could come to that conclusion. I am merely pointing out the obvious. Logic dictates that a debate on anarchy vs. government should not be on a 9/11 thread. Perhaps starting a new one might be in order. Interesting that you mistake wit for insult. I’d be interested to know how many of ’rogue1’s posts were held back.

> “Please point to the place where I say I “prefer” Plato’s Republic.”

Touche’, please point to where I say that you do. I asked this:

“So should we take it that you would prefer his ‘republic’ ruled by philosopher kings?”

It was put to you as a question, not an accusation.

As far as Brave New World being an analog of Plato’s description of his republic, I suppose it might depend on one’s abilities to pattern recognition, one’s depth of imagination and such. It being a rather subjective matter, I won’t press the point.

As far as your claiming not to want to pick a fight with me; I think that is a fair description of a “pigs breakfast”, but again, it might be another subjective call…

Now, as to whether this conversation on the need of government, what government is, etc, and how it has relevance to 9/11; we might begin by asking what relevance 9/11 has to governance.

What was the purpose of 9/11? Is there any connection to the event and any changes that have occurred in the government here and abroad?

I should think with the issues of ‘divide and conquer’ being so obvious in the use of false flags – and it’s continued and compound relevance here as the thread is after all, about “partition of the Truth movement”…and ‘partition’ is simply another term for ‘divide’, that is is pretty natural for this discussion to follow in such a manner as it has.

I don’t think this is as subjective a call as some would assert. And certainly not such a dictatorial exclamation as:

“Logic dictates that a debate on anarchy vs. government should not be on a 9/11 thread.”

For logic in no manner dictates such as is asserted by Mr Felton above.

In my opinion it is well past time that a larger dialog be put, as the situation is stalled if we merely shuffle the evidence back and forth without an eye to what it all means to the larger picture.

“The technocratic application of neuromarketing to what passes for education today is a fitting outcome in a society that has become almost completely controlled by a scientific elite. As was the case one hundred years ago this technocracy is funded and directed by the super wealthy, and trained to refine and implement what they see as most efficient practices for sculpting and managing the collective mind. This self-selected class and its overseers also recognize how such a brave new world operates at optimal efficiency when the bulk of the population has been effectively zombified through stultifying stimulus-response rituals –a process that after many generations has come close to complete fruition.”~James F. Tracy

As a design and a plan, there is nothing new about the New World Order. It is in fact the propagation in a cyclic fashion of a very old world order: Despotic oligarchy and enforced feudalism, branded and rebranded in a roiling mythos sustained by symbolism and technocratic ritual. It is false assumption that ‘technique’ is something new, and not just the current version of artifact, tool making, and apologia for being ruled by the tool.

That is at the base of the enchantment, the human race on its knees to the god of Efficiency. A binary concept lacking appreciation for quality.

This is a deep subject, and one must reference Jacques Ellul, and his brilliant exposition and grimoir, THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

Well, there are more and less forms of offensive behavior. You seem to believe that, in the absence of laws, law enforcement, judicial procedures and forms of punishment, ALL WOULD BE WELL! That’s incredible. I am not talking about the enforcement of ordinary standards of morality, but prosecuting those who violate basic standards of decency. What is there about murder, robbery, kidnapping and rape that you do not understand? O you think we would all be better of in a state of anarchy? I am sorry, OBF, but your libertarian propensities are not well-founded in an understanding of human nature. That there ARE lawbreakers when we have laws gives you some hints of where we would be WITHOUT THEM. I am just a bit taken aback by the incredible naivete you are displaying here. Incomprehensible! The whole purpose of law and even morality is to counteract the tendency for might to make right or the domination of the more powerful, which you, it seems, appear to applaud! I am afraid you believe life would be utopian without governments!

>”The whole purpose of law and even morality is to counteract the tendency for might to make right or the domination of the more powerful”~Fetzer

But in fact it has been through the establishment of “government” that has given those who would rule via ‘might makes right’ a “legitimized” system, now on a global scale. This has lead directly to the policy of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ and a panoptic maximum security state in the hands of a technocratic elite.

Attempts to limit government, as in the American experiment, have clearly failed.

And this is due to Lord Acton’s observation on the corruption of power. And it is most clear that those who seek power over others are invariably those who are least fit to hold such powers.

But we must now face the fact that these philosophical arguments matters not.

Humanity is in the grip of an agenda come to fruition, an ancient regime, long in planning and application. It is a matter of what is – not what might have been.

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”~John F. Kennedy, New York City, April 27, 1963

> Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development
> National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union
> Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution [PDF available]
> Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler [PDF available]
> Wall Street and FDR [PDF available]
> America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones* [according to Sutton, was his most important work.] *Aslo available as free PDF on the web.

“When you take charge of your life, there is no longer need to ask permission of other people or society at large. When you ask permission, you give someone veto power over your life.” ~ Geoffrey Albert, Philosopher

Jim Fetzer said:” What is there about murder, robbery, kidnapping and rape that you do not understand? ”

Here’s what I understand Jim : these are all acts currently “legally” committed, on a daily basis, by literally 1000’s [if not 100’s of 1000’s] of representatives of the US government, both here and overseas.

Why don’t you understand that, [or why do you turn a blind eye to it], or that the very entity that you so unashamedly endorse, is entirely responsible for the criminal events of 9/11? What’s up with that?

Jim Fetzer said: “You think we would all be better of in a state of anarchy? I am sorry, OBF, but your libertarian propensities are not well-founded in an understanding of human nature.”

That would depend on _ your_ definition of anarchy, versus mine, and no, I’m not interested in forcing everyone to live in my anarchic world. As H.L. Mencken said:

“I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.”

I am, however, interested in living my life outside of the grasp of all those who would seek to tell me what is or is not moral according to their socialized standards while pointing their gun at my head, and in showing others how they might do the same [live outside the grasp of all those who would enforce their “morality” at the point of a gun].

And as for my allegedly questionable understanding of human nature, the very fact that I _do_ understand human nature oh so well is the _very_ reason that I do _not_ support any form of government, anywhere. On the other hand, you and others quite happily want to put persons with that exact same human nature in a position of power over others, in the naive assumption that somehow those in power will now all act like angels when given that power over others lives.

Jim Fetzer said: “That there ARE lawbreakers when we have laws gives you some hints of where we would be WITHOUT THEM….The whole purpose of law and even morality is to counteract the tendency for might to make right or the domination of the more powerful,”

I know that is what you have been brainwashed into believing Jim, the same as any other ardent advocate of the state has been, but is that [ i.e.” whole purpose of law and even morality is to counteract the tendency for might to make right or the domination of the more powerful,” ] actually how it has worked out in the real world, or is it not an obvious fact that we are all in reality ruled by an elite, all powerful, entirely above the law, lawless entity called “government” whose current leader has openly declared his right to exterminate US citizens and foreigners anywhere in the world without due process?

Like I said, I find the whole “serious exposer of 9/11 truth” mantle coupled with your unquestioned, rabid support of the very entity that is entirely responsible for 9/11,[and even a call for even _more_ laws], at the very least amusingly ironic and naive, and I also find it to be an enormous philosophical contradiction on your part.

However you have to live your life with that contradiction, not I , so “good luck with that” . 🙂

You cannot seriously believe there would be fewer offenses and crimes if we were without a government? The flaw in your argument is that, only with laws can we hold even our own government officials responsible for their acts. I am not endorsing CRIMINAL ACTS by the government or anyone else. WE MUST OPPOSE THEM, NO MATTER WHO COMMITS THEM. Surely you can appreciate that. Without laws, who can be held responsible for any acts they may commit, including murder, robbery, kidnapping and rape? That even our own government may condone such acts by our own military forces does not mean that we would be BETTER OFF WITHOUT LAWS AND GOVERNMENT. That does not follow.

OBF is committing the standard logical fallacy of the Irrelevant Conclusion. It is doubtless true that government officials break the law, but that does not imply that all government and all laws have to be done away with. Furthermore, he does not address the need for laws in the first place. John Locke, in The Second Treatise on Government made the case that all conflicts arise over private property rights and that laws are needed to prevent such conflicts. Although this is a simplistic argument, it does show at least one need for government and laws.

The time for popular democracy is past. We need to evolve a new form of government, but this thread is the place to do it.

I don’t know Fetzer…I see a glaring contradiction in your last assertion.

Laws, as agreements rather than dictates within societies seems to have led to a more pastoral and peaceful enterprise in looser bound groups. Humans DO have an instinct for what is fair, the imagination to recognize “self in other” – the imagination to feel what it would be like to be in another’s shoes. There are natural moral codes in the DNA of humanity that long predate any ‘ordained moral code’ impressed through authority.

Really? You claim there are genetically-based moral codes in every human being? That is astonishing. The rates of crime in the US especially demonstrate that you are more eager to make cheap points against me than you are to think things through. What you miss is the difference between dispositions (as tendencies to act in specific ways under circumscribed conditions) and predispositions (which allow behavioral tendencies of one kind or another to be acquired under suitable circumstances). If your position were correct, then there would be little or no crime. But it is not the case that there is little or no crime. It follows that your position is not correct. But I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to admit it. (I have a book on this subject, THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE: ARE HUMANS THE ONLY ANIMALS WITH MINDS? (2005) in case you would like to explore the distinction.)

>” Really? You claim there are genetically-based moral codes in every human being? That is astonishing.”

Absolutely I do. Even the lower primates, chimps for example have a sense of what is ‘fair’. Human senses are more evolved, with instinct moderated by the higher realms of consciousness and awareness, and the higher states of imagination.

And I have excluded the faulty models of humanity, the psychopaths; as having errors in their particular DNA sequences. A scientific and medical fact having mainly to do with deformations of the amygdala, with perhaps deformed structures of the hippocampus, and often a calcified pineal gland.
. . . . . . . . . .

>”If your position were correct, then there would be little or no crime. But it is not the case that there is little or no crime. It follows that your position is not correct.”

Crime is an essential element for control, have you never read Machiavelli, ‘The Prince’?

Crime is an industry, as all things are industry in the military industrial complex.
Read Foucault on the evolution of the panoptic penal system based on lessons learned about “quarantine” during the plagues in latter European history.

This society could not be structured on the necessity of a security industry without the product; the criminal. The society is engineered to criminal behavior as a method of instating full spectrum control. It is Hegelian in application, a gyre of thesis and antithesis leading to the total state.

You seem to take the position that the policies that led to the current pandemic of discontent is due to ineptitude, when in fact it is all by design. This is the most planned and engineered society to ever grace {curse} the planet.
. . . . . . . . . .

“Turtle Island is hardly typical of modern society, which is something you’d know if you read what I wrote.”~Felton

Alright, lets look at the subtext of the above sentence. To understand the deconstruction of a frame of language, is to analyze subtext, which are revealed by the assumption that must be carried to support an assertion.

The false assumptions that Felton displays are. 1} That I do not realize that “Turtle Island is not.. typical of modern society.” 2} that this is something that I would learn by reading what Felton wrote.

Whereas, it is obvious that I am making a critique of “modern society” and praise Turtle Island as a society that benefited from it’s connection with, and deep understanding of the proper human interface with nature, of the necessity of balance in that interaction, a deep spiritual connection to life sustaining Earth.

My assertion is that Western Society is pathological at the very proximate base of its structure.

And I really do not see that humanity is as deeply flawed itself, for it has the saving grace of empathy at the root of it’s soul – or there would be no natural aptitude for cooperation, and the original primal population would never made it out of the savannas.

There is of course the “Bad Seed”, the estimated one percent or so, of any human population that is a born psychopath [or Wetiko/Witko as such were referred to by the Native Americans] – and it is this fact that must be born in mind as we follow, not the evolution of man, but the inherent exponential quality in the evolution of man’s technologies.

As such technologies put power in the hands of those who understand power as a lustful passion to be claimed at any cost, the sinister and clever used such technology to network with those of like mind. This system is the fruit of such an agenda. [SEE: Ponerism, as well as the aforementioned works of Ellul. Also Otto Rank, and his essay ART AND ARTIST].

Jim Fetzer says: “You cannot seriously believe there would be fewer offenses and crimes if we were without a government?”

Yes I can. Government itself is the biggest criminal element in todays society. 9/11 is but one small, perfect example of its criminal actions, performed on an hourly/daily basis in all branches.

Governments main objective is not peace, but war, for “war is the health of the state” [http://antiwar.com/bourne.php ].

“Perpetual war for perpetual peace” [http://mises.org/daily/2783 ] on both its citizens and foreigners funded via its twin engines of theft [politely known as taxation] and counterfeiting [ the continual debasement of the medium of exchange via its government controlled central banking system, in the US known as the Federal Reserve system].

The bigger a government is, the more it criminalizes the actions of those outside it.

And the bigger it is the more real crime is committed by others attempting to follow the governments example of theft of property by “legal” force, or by actual violence against others [war] to get what they want.

It seems counter-intuitive I know, but I would assert that if you want a more criminal society Jim, [and more , new, bigger” 9/11’s”] then more government and more laws is exactly the way to go . So “have at it”! 🙂

As per the Panoptic Society, or that which I have referred to as the ‘Panoptic Maximum Security State’ – which is in fact the current state of affairs under the 21st century ‘Homeland Security’ regime; there is no better place to get an understanding as to how this system developed than reading Foucault:

‘Discipline and Punish’ full title: Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison
by Michel Foucault, 1975 [English version:1977]

Rex 84:
Government Silently Positions for Martial Law as Financial Collapse Arrives in America

“A source in the Deutsche Bank claims that in 2008 our financial and monetary system completely collapsed and since that time the banking cartels have been “propping up the system” to make it appear as if everything was fine. In reality our stock market and monetary systems are fake; meaning that there is nothing holding them in place except the illusion that they have stabilized since the Stock Market Crash nearly 5 years ago.

Since this time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with FEMA and other federal agencies have been quickly working to set in place their directives of control under a silent martial law.”~Susanne Posel, Global Research, August 2, 2012

The Events of 9/11: Does the truth have a chance? Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

“As the end of the summer approaches, we are reminded that the anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11 will soon be upon us once again. 11 years later, are we any closer to the truth about what really happened on that fateful day?”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The answer is predicated on who “WE” are. If that ‘we’ is defined as the bulk of Amerikans, then the answer is a resounding “NO”.

And then we look at the ‘infighting’ among the ‘Truth Movement’, and some wonder “what could all that be about?”

It is of course about a penumbra of things, the diversity of human cognizance being one.
Some have latched onto the idea that those who seek a focused consensus have limited the dialog as to what the bottom line truth of the matter is. I see the merit in this critique, as much of my commentary speaks to thus. However there are satellite issues revolving around this. It is not merely the ‘consensus panel’ that is stoking divisions – as likely an unintended effect. There are also the issues of the same proportion of variance in lucidity in the “movement” as that of the general public – only this is in mirror image, and antithetical.

One of the major issues remains, INFILTRATION, and disruption by design.

This is perhaps the hardest issue to deconstruct. Not all chattering fruitcakes are putting on acts, some are simply crackpots. But it is not essential to parse between the agenteur and the dim bulbs. The issues of rationality can toss either in the same trashcan. So the issue at the heart of it is that of what is and isn’t rational.

Therefore, rational debate remains an essential necessity for those determined to remain sane.

gregfelton says: ” I was correcting OBF’s utopian embrace of anarchy as an improvement on our current forms of government. ”

Greg, you have misread. Unlike yourself and Mr Fetzer, I have no interest in saving the world, improving the world, or saving individuals from their own [self-imposed slavery], via the imposition of some political [or anti-political] system or other that everyone would be forced to adhere to.

In fact, I have stated in this very thread:

“….I’m not interested in forcing everyone to live in my anarchic world. As H.L. Mencken said: “I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.”

“I am, however, interested in living my life outside of the grasp of all those who would seek to tell me what is or is not moral according to their socialized standards while pointing their gun at my head, and in showing others how they might do the same [live outside the grasp of all those who would enforce their “morality” at the point of a gun]……”.

The fact of the matter is that “war is the health of the state” : http://www.panarchy.org/bourne/state.1918.html , so, if you want/have government[s] in the first place, then 9/11 and other similar events, as preambles/excuses for those wars, either much larger or smaller in scope, are but one small, inevitable part of the overall price that must be paid for having that government in the first place.

So if more 9/11’s [or worse] is what yourself and Mr Fetzer want, then by all means continue with your implied policy of “perpetual war for perpetual peace” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war , via an even larger and more centralized government. [And the truth is, you will get that in any case, regardless of what you want.]

Myself, I’ll simply [as always] be looking for simple ways to as far as possible avoid the consequences for myself, of what I see as yours [and almost everyone else’s] misguided “world improving” efforts through whatever “improved” form of centralized quasi- “moralistic” tyranny you wish to [mistakenly?] impose on humanity as a whole to further your dreams of a better world through ever larger, more centralized governments.

I don’t get it. Civilization cannot exist without laws and their enforcement, even when that is done in an imperfect fashion. There are many forms of government, from monarchies and dictatorships to aristocracies and plutocracies on to republics and democracies. The basic rationale for some form of democracy, so far as I have been able to discern, is that everyone should be able to participate in decisions that effect them, where something like a system of checks and balances with reforms and referenda looks close to what a deontological moral theory, according to which everyone should be treated as intrinsically valuable (with respect) and no one should be treated merely as a means (as in murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape) is the moral foundation for society. Because slavery entails treating other persons merely as means, slave-based societies are inherently immoral. Unfortunately, without labor unions, collective bargaining, workmen’s compensation, unemployment insurance, and the like, we would be just one more form of a slave-based society akin to the feudal states with lords and serfs. I like you, OBF, but you have really missed the boat on this one–BIG TIME!

Jim Fetzer says: “without labor unions, collective bargaining, workmen’s compensation, unemployment insurance, and the like, we would be just one more form of a slave-based society akin to the feudal states with lords and serfs”

Actually Jim, I would contend that _because_ of the federalized, mandatory requirements that you have partially listed here [and there are many more such “requirements”, as you well know] , we are already in fact “one more form of a slave-based society akin to the feudal states with lords and serfs” .

Below is a link to some of the to date results of your thinking regarding state regulation of morality [at the _state_ level, not even the Federal level] ; and bear in mind, it can only get worse the larger and more centralized any government becomes:

Article : ” The Overcriminalization of America: Are We All Criminals Now?”:

“Under the blazing Arizona sun stands an encampment of military tents filled with some 2,000 people. They battle the heat by positioning themselves in front of a few large fans, but they are of little use when temperatures reach 145 degrees. Stun fences surround the perimeter, with four Sky Watch Towers bearing down on the occupants. Facial recognition software and K-9 units keep track of the people moving about, longing for their freedom.

For the residents of Tent City Jail, their time behind bars is an exercise in humiliation: they are forced to dress in pink underwear, they “work seven days a week, are fed only twice a day, get no coffee, no cigarettes, no salt, pepper or ketchup and no organized recreation.” They work on chain gangs, and have to pay ten bucks every time they want to see a nurse. This draconian treatment is not reserved for hardened criminals. In fact, most inmates in Tent City are imprisoned for less than a year for minor crimes, or are simply awaiting trial.

It is in this Guantanamo-like facility, surrounded by hardened criminals and subjected to all manners of degradation and hardship that Michael Salman – who was fined more than $12,000 and sentenced to 60 days in jail starting on July 9, 2012, for the so-called “crime” of holding a weekly Bible study in his Phoenix home, allegedly in violation of the city’s building codes – is incarcerated……….”
Rest of article here: http://lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead51.1.html

>”…we would be just one more form of a slave-based society akin to the feudal states with lords and serfs.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You speak to the ‘future tense” in this sentence, when anyone who is aware of our present condition realizes that it is NOW the present condition, not only in the US, but in essence throughout the entire world.

And this is the FRUITION I have been speaking to.

I think both you and Felton have been indoctrinated into the Lollipop Paradigm by your time in “academia”, where you both learned WHAT to think rather than HOW to think. {The both of you can spout off the formulaic mantras of “critical thinking” while displaying an utter lack of actually using such.}

Our true manifestation on the physical plain is that of unique individuals, with a unique will, and urges towards our own unique path; that is stunted through the regimentation enforced by “civilization”, by “government”, by ‘authority’, which has no legitimacy over any human being who recognizes their own personal sovereignty.

No one in this nation has EVER lived under real democratic governance, the nation began under a cloaked oligarchy and has ever sense remained in such. Your Lollipop History is mythos, no more real than the Greek Gods, Valhalla, or a Communitarian Utopia.

Look at “American Exceptionalsim” – “Manifest Destiny”:

These are no less Machiavellian and ‘Might is Right’ credos than any other to curse the face of this planet {Ask the Red Man}.

But there is not convincing one with implanted concepts, that they are simply repeating well-worn scripts, as though they thought them through personally.

[On the true nature of all states everywhere. There are, and can be, _no_ exceptions. It is delusional to believe that there can/could be any such exceptions; true, different states are larger or smaller by comparison [to say, the US, or China], and may enforce slightly different laws, however they _all_ operate on the exact same premises, principles, pretenses and state indoctrinated [via public “education”] false assumptions and ideologies. They [states] must _all_ ,sooner or later, manufacture their very own “9/11″‘s, in order to consolidate power and survive, as the presenter tries to point out. ]

N.B. The actual presentation itself does not start until the 9:19 mark. Before that its about different recommended books to read.

Perhaps I can make my first sentence in my reply to Tamborine more succinct by an example;

Take 9/11. In this event an “enemy” is revealed, not one that we necessarily predetermined as ‘a people’, but one that defined itself in the ‘attack’. This ‘definition’ was in fact telegraphed in a historical document written and promoted by those who instigated 9/11, that being the infamous, PNAC document previous to the events.

New Yorkers did not ‘choose’ this enemy by pre-definition nor an act of their own will. They were chosen for attack by a pre-existant enemy; one they were unaware of until the attack took place.

Thus to “know thine enemy” is to have the ability to discover this blatant link between the event, and those who obviously planned it. Had the bulk of New Yorkers, indeed the bulk of the population of the whole nation been aware of this enemy – had they “Known their enemy” as many of us who have studied the national security state, the events of 9/11 would never have taken place, for the national security state would have been dismantled long before the 21st century arrived in such a schizoid fashion.

Again, I see in your ‘philosophy’ {as it were} a distinct connection to the school of thinking {Wittgensteinian} that rejects ’cause and effect’, the type of thinking that sees all events as happening in a vacuum disconnected from all else.

Wittgenstein was attempting to defend a non-causal conception of freedom of the will which posits actions as free only when they are uncaused. That is a mistake, of course, since it would mean our actions are only free when they are not brought about by our motives, beliefs, ethics, abilities and capabilities–that is, only when we had no control over them, which is a reductio of the non-causal approach.

A more defensible conception is that our actions are free when they are (more or less) voluntary and unfree when they are (more or less) involuntary. When we act in accordance with our motives, beliefs, ethics, abilities and capabilities–absence coercion and constraint–we are acting freely. Since they are degrees of coercion and constraint, there are degrees of freedom of the will, under this conception.

I have addressed this question several places, including RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2007). Ask yourself if you feel free when you are being coaxed or induced to act in ways other than you would act without that coaxing or inducement. The answer, of course, is that you do not–where external influences that affect our freedom of action can be mild and unobjectionable or severe and highly offensive. Q.E.D.

The term he coined to describe these government atrocities is “democide”.

He claims hat his research reveals that six times as many people died of democide during the 20th century than in all that century’s wars combined. The figures are in the 10’s of millions [at least].

“Democide” is the word he coins to combine genocide (murdering because of membership in a hated race, ethnicity,or religion,) plus politicide ( murdering for political purposes, e.g; dissidents ) and mass murder (indiscriminate killing).

Sadly, and illogically, despite the evidence he has amassed, according to Wikipedia, he concludes that “democracy is the form of government least likely to kill its citizens and that democracies do not wage war against each other” .

Greg Felton says: “……It is doubtless true that government officials break the law, but that does not imply that all government and all laws have to be done away with.
…”

Mr Felton, you might want to take a close look at the works of political scientist R.J. Rummel, …..

Here you totally ignore what Greg is actually saying. Instead you embark on a rave about somebody else’s findings.

You completely ignore the fact that there are “governments” in this world that are a bit more advanced, and a bit more developed than America and other countries, and who do not as a rule “kill” their own citizens.

If you want to talk about ‘underdeveloped’ countries as your contention to the argument, why don’t you tell us so, so we know what you’re talking about!

So far you’re telling us that we’re ‘born free’, but you’re not showing us anything that indicates that you’re still following this ‘dictum’, as you’re rather misleading and deceptive in your responses.

Better you change your user-name to “onenolongerfree”, as to be FREE, you simply HAVE to be HONEST. There’s just no other way around this ……. i would dearly like you to know!

> “to be FREE, you simply HAVE to be HONEST. There’s just no other way around this ……. i would dearly like you to know!”

This statement is a non sequitur.

One who is free, is free to be honest or dishonest. One who is free is able to follow his own lights where ever they may lead. If you had an ugly fat daughter, would you tell her so? Is this not a misguided act of cruelty instead?

Would it be proper to tell a thief that your money was hidden in your sock when he demanded your money? Wouldn’t it be smarter to claim you had no money?

Why do you claim that Onebornfree is “dishonest” simply because you disagree with him? And yet you hold yourself out as honest, when you in fact made that scurrilous remark to Whitesands as to him being my “wife”, pretending it was a question put out of “curiosity”…your excuse was in fact a bald faced lie.

But the worse of this is that you seem to live a lie…lying to yourself that you are some sort of advanced “moral character,” a transcendent being on some divine evangelical mission. You pretend at “reason and logic” with a consistency that drives a reader to wretched boredom.

Everyone paying attention here recognizes the moment that Onebornfree spurned you. You are as transparent as museum glass.

Tamborine man says: “You completely ignore the fact that there are “governments” in this world that are a bit more advanced, and a bit more developed than America and other countries, and who do not as a rule “kill” their own citizens.”

My contention has been that _all_ governments, regardless of form, or label applied to describe them, are nothing more than “legal” criminal enterprises . That some may appear to kill fewer of their own citizens than others like the US is largely determined by their size – the larger any state becomes, the harder it is for that state to conceal its own nefarious actions.

Which does not mean that smaller states are not killing their own citizens [or foreigners] on a regular basis, only that their doing so is not as easily discoverable, especially considering the fact that all states deliberately lie to their citizens as a matter of necessity, even the small ones,[ or the more “advanced” ones, to borrow your term] .

But again, my point was/is : that all states [i.e all governments] are essentially criminal enterprises, no more, and no less.

Even if some of them in reality really do kill less of their own, or less foreigners, than others appear to [as a percentage of overall population], does not change the fact that they are still inescapably 100% criminal enterprises, no less so than the criminal United States you despise so much.

I understand that you do not comprehend the inherent, inescapable criminality of all states/governments.

That’s OK. I have no need/desire to convince you that I am right and you are wrong because you see exceptions to the rule in some government or other [although it is interesting that you did not bother to name these more “advanced” states].

I have no argument with you. Besides, nearly everyone in the world apparently believes you are right, and that I am wrong in the first place, so why do you even care that I say you are wrong – you’ve already “won” the argument as far as most people in the world are concerned, yes?

And, what’s more, you already have what you want: that is, plenty of governments that are rapidly increasing in size practically everywhere you care to look in the world – surely an idyllic situation for you and most others here, I would imagine 🙂 .

All I would say is that if you are still a little open minded on the subject and willing to at least explore for yourself my assertion of the inherent criminal nature of all governments, everywhere, then you might want to consider reading a couple of short books on the subject:

Well said OneBornFree. One cannot look at a country and say it sucks while claiming that another country is perfect.

Europe is a lot smaller in size and population then the USA but they have their share of complaints of the National Health Care including but not limited to long waiting lists.

In fact there is a forum just for that purpose if you search for *National Health Care in Europe sucks* but I think the link would get removed on here if I posted it because one has to be politically corrected to be allowed to post on here.

Most of the people who benefit from the system are those who work for the Government in the first place like teachers/Professors and those who are able to work from home but all governments are forcing furlough days because of budget problems and are slowly removing their rose color glasses.

There is a HUGE difference between government unions and unions that represent the average worker which the latter has helped brought progress and that is leading to a damaged 9/11 truth movement if it ever existed in the first place.

If it weren’t for the movement being so focused on hatred against the neoconservatives I am sure we would’ve had the 100s of cameras be available for the public to prove what REALLY happened at the Pentagon.

Does the media seriously expect us to believe the official story based on one crappy CCTV camera without alternate angles being shown?

I think the 9/11 truth movement was and is a government controlled operation straight from the start to cause arguing and fighting on purpose while at the same time engineering the 2008 economy crisis. The Neo Cons were just useful idiots as they are a new generation of young people not knowing a thing about the economy and caved in to the bankster’s.

The only good thing is they fought the idiotic global warming treaties hand and foot that would’ve bankrupt us even sooner but then on the OTHER hand that might’ve been a good thing to sign i as the debt monster wouldn’t have been so big as it is today.

It would’ve been only millions vs today’s trillions that Obama spent and didn’t deliver his promises of fixing our roads and bridges. Just earlier this year a bridge near Mount Vernon WA collapsed due to old age and people had to take a detour to get into town.

Because of a new post, I have reread this thread, which includes a lot of fascinating and, at times, even brilliant commentary, including some from those with whom I often disagree. I would like to back up and say that I may have inadvertently sidetracked the point of Craig’s essay, which is to focus on internal criticism and internal suppression as self-defeating, on which I completely agree. Let me offer a (to me) rather stunning illustration of this in action.

Ryan’s attack on me was so utterly misconceived and so completely bereft of any rational warrant I published a critique, “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/the-debate-over-911-truth-kevin-ryan-vs-jim-fetzer/ Not only has he continued to promote the myth of explosive nanothermite beyond its life expectancy (actually, long after its obituary had been published THREE TIMES) but he demonstrated his eagerness to attack me without understanding any of the questions, much less the answers. I think this may be a far better example of Craig’s concerns here.

P.S. For those who are not up-to-speed on the nanothermite issues, see these articles:

You can now find us at truthandshadows.com!

To reach this site, you can now simply go to truthandshadows.com (no need to type in "wordpress") and you be redirected here. This will save people all over the world tens of seconds over their lifetimes!

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Plato on shadows

Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone believed by the masses. – Plato

Choosing dictatorship

A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality that is contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the police state dictatorship it is going to get. – Ian Williams Goddard

The stages of truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
– Arthur Schoepenhauer

Origin of the term ‘False Flag’

The term originated in the days of naval warfare. Ships would hoist the flag of their enemy, enabling them to approach closer to enemy ships than otherwise they could. They then could open fire with the advantage of surprise. The combination of secrecy and deception is a hallmark of all false flag operations.
The definitional issues of false flag go well beyond the two components mentioned above and will be tackled in Part 3. The false flag phenomenon encompasses false flag events, pseudo events, front organizations and players (agents). In the events category the not-always-reliable Wikipedia provides a good definition:
False flag operations are covert operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operation) conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations […] designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. […] False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_ tension).
Outcomes are one criterion for classifying false flag events, pseudo events, fronts and agents. The strategy of tension, mentioned in the Wikipedia definition, includes all four forms. Ironically a pretty good explanation of the outcomes criterion can be found on an anti-Truther site, Skeptoid:*
If one were to work solely from [“conspiracy hotbeds”] it would be easy to get the impression that our recent history is jammed with prefabricated incidents designed to enable our government to grab more power, take away the rights of the common people and/or line their already fattened pockets.
You got it right there, Skeptoid.
• http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/01/21/false-flag-attacks-myth-and-reality/
.– Barrie Zwicker

Exposing the lies

The World-Wide 9/11 Truth movement is currently the largest investigative journalism project on the planet. – Barrie Zwicker

On conspiracy theories

Every time someone makes fun of the idea of “conspiracy theories” they are exhibiting a conditioned response – like salivating when they hear a bell or believing a TV news program. – Craig McKee

Reach Craig by email

It took long enough, but Truth and Shadows now has its own email for those of you wanting to send messages to me that aren't intended for the comments section. To reach me, email truthandshadows@yahoo.com.
Some of you already have been using my personal email to reach me with blog related messages or questions, and you can certainly continue to do that if you wish. - Craig McKee